Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 33669/96

by Július PERÉNYI

against the Slovak Republic

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 10 July 1996 by

Július PERÉNYI against the Slovak Republic and registered on 5 November

1996 under file No. 33669/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Slovak national born in 1955 and residing in

Bratislava.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

On 2 April 1991 the applicant was dismissed from the Corps of the

National Security (Zbor národnej bezpecnosti) for redundancy. On

4 November 1991 the Minister of the Interior of the Czech and Slovak

Federal Republic upheld this decision.

On 31 July 1992 the Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd) of the Czech and

Slovak Federal Republic quashed the aforesaid decision of the Minister

of the Interior. It considered that the applicant's redundancy had not

been established with sufficient certainty.

On 21 September 1992 the Minister of the Interior of the Czech

and Slovak Federal Republic quashed the decision on the applicant's

dismissal.

On 6 October 1992 the applicant was dismissed from the Federal

Police Corps (Federálny policajny zbor) on the ground that he had

become redundant. On 11 December 1992 the Director of the Surveillance

Service of the Federal Police Corps informed the applicant, with

reference to the aforesaid decision of 6 October 1992, that his service

with the police would be terminated as from 31 December 1992.

The applicant considered that his dismissal of 6 October 1992 was

unlawful and appealed.

On 29 June 1994 the Minister of the Interior of the Slovak

Republic dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision stated that

after the applicant had become redundant, he had been offered two posts

in Bratislava and a post in Prague but had refused to accept them. The

Minister of the Interior further held that the applicant had been

dismissed in accordance with the law in force.

On 9 December 1994 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic found

that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful and quashed the

decision of the Minister of the Interior of 29 June 1994.

On 27 March 1995 the Minister of the Interior quashed the

decision on the applicant's dismissal of 6 October 1992. The

Minister's decision further stated that the applicant had ceased to be

a member of the Federal Police Corps as from 31 December 1992.

Reference was made to Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992 according to

which the service of the policemen belonging to the armed security

forces of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was terminated upon the

expiry of 31 December 1992.

The applicant considered that he continued being a member of the

police and claimed that the Minister's decision of 27 March 1995 should

be quashed.

On 28 September 1995 the Supreme Court discontinued the

proceedings. It held that the applicant's service in the police had

been terminated ex lege pursuant to Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992.

The Supreme Court further found that by informing the applicant about

this fact the Minister of the Interior had not taken any separate

decision on this issue that would be reviewable by administrative

courts.

On 16 January 1996 the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd)

rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint. It held that the

applicant's service had been terminated ex lege pursuant to

Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992 and considered that there existed no

individual decision in this regard that the applicant could challenge

by means of a constitutional complaint.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his service in the police was

terminated unlawfully and that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional

Court decided on his claim in this respect erroneously. He alleges a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

The applicant also complains that he did not have an effective

remedy before Slovak authorities as regards the termination of his

service in the police. He alleges a violation of Article 13 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about his dismissal from the police and

about the subsequent proceedings concerning his claim that he was

dismissed unlawfully. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as

follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

...

To the extent that the applicant complains about his dismissal

from the police, the Commission recalls that the right of access to the

civil service is not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention (see Eur.

Court HR, Kosiek v. Germany judgment of 28 August 1986, Series A

no. 105, p. 20, para. 35).

To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the proceedings concerning

his dismissal, the Commission recalls that disputes relating to the

recruitment, careers and termination of service of civil servants are,

as a general rule, outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention (see, as one of the most recent references, Eur.

Court HR, Argento v. Italy judgment of 2 September 1997, Reports 1997-V

no. 48, paras. 18 and 19).

The Commission notes that in the present case the applicant

complains exclusively of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of

his dismissal from the police. Thus the dispute in question clearly

related to the termination of his service and did not concern a "civil"

right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention. Accordingly, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is not

applicable to the present case.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant further complains that he had no effective remedy

as regards his dismissal from the police. He alleges a violation of

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which provides as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Commission recalls that the right of recourse guaranteed in

Article 13 (Art. 13) can only relate to a right protected by the

Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Pierre-Bloch v.

France judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI no. 53, para. 64).

In view of its above finding that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention is not applicable to the present case, the Commission

considers that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention is not

applicable, either.

It follows that this part of the application is also incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

Menu

PERENYI v. SLOVAK REPUBLIC

PERENYI v. SLOVAK REPUBLIC

LEXI