AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                    Application No. 29764/96

                    by Ahmet IMAM and others

                    against Greece

     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

20 October 1997, the following members being present:

          Mr   S. TRECHSEL, President

          Mrs  G.H. THUNE

          Mrs  J. LIDDY

          MM   E. BUSUTTIL

               G. JÖRUNDSSON

               A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

               A. WEITZEL

               J.-C. SOYER

               H. DANELIUS

               F. MARTINEZ

               C.L. ROZAKIS

               L. LOUCAIDES

               J.-C. GEUS

               M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

               B. MARXER

               M.A. NOWICKI

               I. CABRAL BARRETO

               B. CONFORTI

               N. BRATZA

               J. MUCHA

               D. SVÁBY

               G. RESS

               A. PERENIC

               C. BÎRSAN

               K. HERNDL

               E. BIELIUNAS

               E.A. ALKEMA

               M. VILA AMIGÓ

          Mrs  M. HION

          MM   R. NICOLINI

               A. ARABADJIEV

          Mr   M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 14 December 1995

by Ahmet IMAM and others against Greece and registered on

9 January 1996 under file No. 29764/96;

     Having regard to:

-    the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

     the Commission;

-    the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

     15 January 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

     applicants on 15 April 1997;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     All applicants are Greek citizens. The first five applicants,

born respectively in 1955, 1961, 1959, 1950 and 1959, and the seventh

applicant, born in 1956, reside in Xanthi, Greece. The sixth applicant

was born in 1953 and resides in Pahni, Xanthi. The eighth applicant was

born in 1950 and resides in Passos Sapon, Rodopi, Greece. The ninth

applicant was born in 1951 and resides in Komotini, Rodopi, Greece. The

tenth applicant was born in 1946 and resides in Kalamokastro, Rodopi.

The eleventh applicant was born in 1943 and resides in Komotini. The

twelfth applicant was born in 1952 and resides in Dokos Sapon. The

thirteenth applicant was born in 1951 and resides in Filira Sapon.

     The first seven applicants are represented by Mr. O. Haciibram,

a lawyer practising in Xanthi. The first, second, fourth, sixth and

seventh applicants are also represented by Mr. I. A. Kehagia, a lawyer

practising in Xanthi. The remaining six applicants are represented by

Mr. H. Kasiktsoglou, a lawyer practising in Komotini, and Professor T.

Akillioglu, who is also practising as a lawyer in Ankara, Turkey.

     The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

     General background

     The applicants, who consider themselves members of the Turkish

Muslim minority of Thrace, are graduates of the Special  Academy for

Teachers (Idiki Pedagoyiki Akadimia) of Thessaloniki. They used to work

as teachers in the minority schools of Thrace, the first seven in the

Prefecture of Xanthi and the remaining six in the Prefecture of Rodopi.

Their conditions of employment were not different from those of other

civil servants.

     On 18 January 1993 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture

of Rodopi called all the Muslim teachers of the minority schools of

Rodopi to attend an educational meeting on 1 February 1993. The aim of

the meeting was to present new books for the teaching of the Turkish

language, which would be delivered to the directors of the schools

between 2 and 5 February 1993.

     A similar order was issued on 19 January 1993 by the Minority

Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi.

     On 26 January 1993 the Coordination Committee of the Highest

Council of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace issued a

statement to the effect that the content of these books "was in breach

of the autonomy of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace" and

failed to respect certain international agreements. The Muslim teachers

were called upon not to collect these books and the Muslim pupils not

to attend school between 1 and 5 February 1993, in order to voice the

protest of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace.

     On 29 January 1993 the Union of Turkish Teachers of Western

Thrace issued a statement to the effect that the Turkish schools of

Western Thrace would be closed between 1 and 5 February 1993, because

the Turkish teachers of Western Thrace were against the Turkish

language books which the Greek State intended to distribute to the

pupils of the minority schools. The statement also said that all the

Turkish Muslim teachers of Western Thrace would participate in the

strike. Reference was made to the members of the Union of Teachers of

Western Thrace who were graduates of the Special Academy for Teachers

of Thessaloniki. The statement specified that all those who felt

Turkish and who wanted to learn or teach the Turkish language would

take part in the boycott.

     On an unspecified date, a Muslim religious leader, the mufti of

Xanthi, called on the Muslim teachers who felt Turkish not to go to the

presentation of the books on 1 February 1993.

     On 31 January 1993 there was a general meeting of the members of

the Association of Minority Teachers of Rodopi, in which the eighth,

ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth applicants took part.

This was an association which had repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried

to obtain recognition by the Multi-Member First Instance Civil Court

(Polimeles Protodikio) of Rodopi (decisions No. 147/1992, 167/1993,

198/1993 and 5/1995). In the meeting of 31 January 1993 it was decided

that the members of the association would not attend the educational

meeting of 1 February 1993 in the Minority Schools Office of the

Prefecture of Rodopi, that they would not perform their duties between

1 and 5 February 1993 and that they would refuse to collect the new

books. The general meeting requested the provisional executive

committee of the association to inform the Minority Schools Office of

these decisions.

     On 1 February 1993 the provisional executive committee of the

association, composed of the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth

and thirteenth applicants, informed in writing the Minority Schools

Office of the decisions of the general meeting.

     On 1 February 1993 eleven teachers of the minority schools of

Xanthi, including the first seven applicants, signed a statement to the

effect that they would not attend the educational meeting in the

Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi in order to protest

about certain unfair decisions against them concerning posting,

transfer and secondment and their exclusion from training seminars in

Thessaloniki and Strasbourg. They specified that they would not carry

out their duties between 1 and 5 February 1993.

     On 5 February 1993 the Executive Committee of the Highest Council

of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace issued a statement

congratulating the pupils and teachers who took part in the

mobilisation which showed the length to which the minority was prepared

to go in order to vindicate its rights.

     Proceedings against the first seven applicants

     On 3 February 1993 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture

of Xanthi asked the first seven applicants to state the reasons why

they had not attended the educational meeting of 1 February 1993.

     On 8 February 1993 the applicants replied that, if they had

attended the meeting, disturbances could have been caused in their

school areas. The first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh

applicants added that the purpose of the meeting was to make them

collect books the content of which was not compatible with the Treaty

of Lausanne and the educational agreements of 1951 and 1968 between

Greece and Turkey. In the view of these applicants, the only books

which the minority could validly accept for the teaching of the Turkish

language were books sent by Turkey.

     On 8 February 1993 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture

of Xanthi decided to institute disciplinary proceedings under

Article 206 para. 1 subparas. 1, 6, 12, 19, 20, 27 and 28 of the Civil

Servants' Code against the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants

for having failed to attend the educational meeting of 1 February 1993.

Similar proceedings were instituted on 9 February 1993 against the

first, second and seventh applicants.

     On 10 February 1993 the Regional Disciplinary Board of Xanthi

ordered an inquiry and decided provisionally to suspend the seven

applicants from their duties for a year pending the outcome of the

disciplinary proceedings against them.

     On 31 March 1993 the Ministry of Education confirmed the decision

of the Regional Disciplinary Board of Xanthi regarding the provisional

suspension of the applicants from their duties.

     On 5 April 1994 the Regional Disciplinary Board of Xanthi issued

a decision in which it considered the following:

     First, the seven applicants had been asked by their superiors to

attend the educational meeting of 1 February 1993 but had failed to do

so, arguing that attending the meeting would have disrupted their

relationship with their pupils and their parents and put their personal

integrity in danger. However, the Board considered that this excuse was

not valid, because the meeting would have taken place in the city of

Xanthi far from the applicants' school areas. Moreover, the applicants

took part in a strike between 1 and 5 February 1993 complying with the

order and appeal of the irregular Coordination Committee of the Highest

Council of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal

of the illegally self-proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the Muslim

teachers who felt Turkish not to attend the meeting of 1 February 1993.

They had accused the State of persecuting them. Their illegal acts had

contributed to creating tension and commotion in the minority

community. The applicants had allied themselves with certain subversive

elements in the minority community who falsely contended that there was

no equality before the law in Western Thrace. Thus, they had become

agents of foreign anti-Greek powers. These facts constituted the

following disciplinary offences: not having faith in and dedication to

their country (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 1 of the Civil Servants'

Code), refusing to discharge their duties or employing obstructive

tactics (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 19 of the Code), taking part in

a strike in breach of Article 23 para. 2 of the Constitution and the

relevant legislation (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 20 of the Code) and

intentionally engaging in an act or omission which could damage or

endanger the interests of the State (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 27).

     Secondly, the applicants had publicly criticised the Ministry of

Education on the ground that the new books were distributed in breach

of international agreements concluded by Greece. As a result, they had

committed the disciplinary offence of criticising the actions of their

superiors in public using phraseology which showed lack of respect or

intentionally using unfounded arguments (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 6

of the above-mentioned Code).

     Thirdly, the applicants had become organs of irregular committees

acting against the interests of the nation. Their actions had stirred

up trouble in the minority community and had led to the involvement of

Turkish newspapers, to tension between the two countries and to

criminal proceedings being instituted against parents who had disrupted

the functioning of the schools. As a result, the applicants had

committed the disciplinary offence of failing to respect a duty imposed

by criminal law (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 28 of the Code).

     The Board was fully satisfied that the applicants "acting in full

conscience and with intent and malice, behaving in a manner

incompatible with their status as civil servants, acting against the

nation and obeying the commands of anti-Greek power structures, aimed

at destabilising the region where the situation was until then normal

and creating social unrest." In the light of all the above, the Board

decided to impose on the applicants the disciplinary penalty of

dismissal.

     On 31 May 1994 the applicants challenged the decision of the

Disciplinary Board before the Council of State (Simvulio Epikratias).

They claimed that they did not lack faith in and dedication to their

country, that they had not acted against social order, that they had

the right to engage in objective and reasonable criticism of the

actions of their superiors or the Government, that they had not refused

to discharge their duties but had instead participated in a lawful

strike, that they had not engaged in any acts which could have caused

damage to the State or in any criminal offences, that they had been

forced not to collect the books in person because their lives had been

threatened by other Muslims, that the Board had attributed wrong

motives to their actions which were not anti-Greek and that their

punishment aimed at their destruction. They further submitted that the

hearing before the Disciplinary Board had not been preceded by a proper

inquiry, that they had been punished for offences which were not

mentioned in the decisions instituting proceedings against them and

that the Board had not heard a number of witnesses they had proposed.

Finally, they argued that the decision of the Board was not duly

reasoned in that it failed to specify how their actions amounted to the

particular disciplinary offences which should be punished with the

particular penalty.

     On 22 June 1995 the Council of State rejected the applicants'

appeal. The Council considered that the inquiry ordered on

10 February 1993 satisfied the requirements of the law and that the

Board had not failed to examine any witnesses proposed by the

applicants. The Council also considered that the applicants could not

be punished for facts other than those which were mentioned in the

decisions of 8 and 9 February 1993 by which the disciplinary

proceedings had been instituted. The applicants could only be punished

for having failed to attend the educational meeting of 1 February 1993.

     However, the Disciplinary Board and the Council of State remained

free to examine these facts under different legal provisions from those

mentioned in the decisions instituting disciplinary proceedings.

     The Council considered that the applicants' failure to attend the

meeting of 1 February 1993 in order to participate in a strike between

1 and 5 February 1993 amounted to the disciplinary offence of serious

disobedience under Article 207 para. 4 subpara. 10 of the Civil

Servants' Code.

     The Council found that the punishment imposed was appropriate

given the circumstances in which the offence had taken place. The

Council referred in this connection to the statement of 26 January 1993

of the Coordination Committee of the Highest Council of the Muslim

Turkish Minority of Western Thrace, the statement of 29 January 1993

of the Union of Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace and the statement

of the mufti of Xanthi which called on all the Muslim teachers who

considered themselves Turkish not to attend the educational meeting of

1 February 1993. The Council considered that the applicants had

obviously associated their failure to comply with the order to attend

the educational meeting with the above-mentioned statements of

organisations which purported to represent the self-proclaimed Turkish

minority of Western Thrace. Seen in the light of the above, the

applicants' actions had had as a result the disruption of the

functioning of the minority schools in Western Thrace in which the

State was particularly interested. They had also resulted in social

unrest among the Muslim minority of this sensitive region. This in turn

could have resulted in dangerous albeit unwarranted disruption of the

friendly relations between Greece and neighbouring countries and in the

disruption of the harmonious coexistence between the Greek citizens,

Muslim and Christian, who lived in Western Thrace.

     Finally, the Council considered that the decision of the Board

was duly reasoned. All the elements of the disciplinary offence of

serious disobedience were set out in the decision which specified that

the applicants had not attended the meeting of 1 February 1993,

although they had been asked to do so by their superiors. The decision

also specified that the applicants had complied with the order and

appeal of the irregular Coordination Committee of the Highest Council

of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal of the

illegally self-proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the Muslim

teachers who felt Turkish not to attend the meeting of 1 February 1993.

     Proceedings against the remaining six applicants

     On 2 February 1993 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture

of Rodopi asked the remaining six applicants to state the reasons why

they had not attended the educational meeting of 1 February 1993. The

applicants were also asked to explain why they had convened, on

31 January 1993 and in their capacity as members of a non-recognised

executive committee, a meeting of the Muslim teachers with civil

servant status and why they had cooperated in the taking of the

decision not to attend the educational meeting, not to carry out their

duties from 1 until 5 February 1993 and to refuse to collect the books

for the teaching of the Turkish language.

     On 5 February 1993 the six applicants replied that, if they had

attended the educational meeting of 1 February 1993, disturbances could

have been caused in their school areas. They added that the purpose of

the meeting was to make them collect books the content of which was not

compatible with the Treaty of Lausanne and the educational agreements

of 1951 and 1968 between Greece and Turkey. In the applicants' view,

the only books which the minority could validly accept for the teaching

of the Turkish language were books sent by Turkey. Finally, they

claimed that they had not convened the meeting of Muslim teachers on

31 January but that they had simply attended it.

     On 5 February 1993 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture

of Rodopi decided to institute disciplinary proceedings under

Article 206 para. 1 subparas. 1, 6, 12, 19, 20, 27 and 28 of the Civil

Servants' Code against the six applicants for having failed to attend

the educational meeting of 1 February 1993 and for having convened the

31 January 1993 meeting in which  the above-mentioned decisions had

been taken. The Minority Schools Office considered that, as a result

of the applicants' actions, very few teachers had attended the

educational meeting, the functioning of the schools and of the

Prefecture had been rendered problematic, there had been a lot of

publicity and social peace had been disturbed. Finally, the Minority

Schools Office imputed to the applicants the fact that, although a

newspaper and the illegal Union of Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace

had announced that the teachers with civil servant status would

participate in the strike, they had convened a general meeting of their

de facto association in an attempt to render legitimate an illegal

action. In reality, however, they had obeyed the orders of an illegal

union and a political party.

     On 20 February 1993 the Regional Disciplinary Board of Rodopi

ordered an inquiry and decided provisionally to suspend the seven

applicants from their duties for a year pending the outcome of the

disciplinary proceedings against them.

     On 31 March 1993 the Ministry of Education confirmed the decision

of the Regional Disciplinary Board of Rodopi regarding the provisional

suspension of the applicants from their duties.

     On 4 June 1993 the applicants appealed against the decision of

31 March 1993 of the Ministry to the Administrative Court of Appeal

(Diikitiko Efetio) of Athens. On a date which has not been specified,

the administrative court rejected their appeal.

     In a decision issued on 8 April 1994 the Regional Disciplinary

Board of Rodopi considered the following:

     First, the applicants had been asked by their superiors to attend

the educational meeting of 1 February 1993 but had failed to do so,

arguing that the meeting could have caused commotion in the school

area. However, the Board considered that this excuse was not valid,

because the meeting would have taken place in the city of Komotini far

from the applicants' school areas. Moreover, the applicants had taken

part in the illegal strike between 1 and 5 February 1993 following the

instructions of the irregular and illegal Union of Turkish Teachers

which had been disbanded by the Court of Cassation. The Union had

issued a statement to the effect that the Muslim teachers with civil

servant status who felt as Turks would take part in the strike. In the

statements they had made in their defence, the applicants had made

allusion to the possibility of the parents of the pupils reacting

violently. The applicants had questioned the sovereign right of Greece

to provide for the education of Greek citizens in accordance with the

Constitution and the relevant legislation. Moreover, they had

contributed to the creation of tension and commotion in Thrace and had

attempted to disrupt social order obeying the instructions of foreign

anti-Greek powers. As a result, the applicants had committed the

disciplinary offence of not having faith in and dedication to their

country (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 1 of the Civil Servants' Code).

     Secondly, the applicants had argued that the new books had been

distributed in breach of the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the Board

considered that the Treaty of Lausanne made no provision concerning

books. As a result, the applicants had committed the disciplinary

offence of  criticising the actions of their superiors in public using

phraseology which showed lack of respect or intentionally using

unfounded arguments (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 6 of the above-

mentioned Code).

     Thirdly, the applicants had taken part in an illegal strike and

had failed to discharge their duties for a week. As a result, they had

committed the disciplinary offence of faulty discharge of their duties

(Article 206 para. 1, subpara. 12 of the Code).

     Fourthly, the applicants had failed to obey the order to attend

the educational meeting of 1 February 1993. As a result, they had

committed the disciplinary offence of  refusing to discharge their

duties or employing obstructive tactics (Article 206 para. 1

subpara. 19 of the Code).

     Fifthly, the applicants had taken part in an illegal strike

called by the irregular and illegal Union of Turkish Teachers of

Western Thrace. The Union had not followed the normal procedures when

calling the strike. As a result, the applicants had committed the

disciplinary offence of taking part in a strike in breach of Article 23

para. 2 of the Constitution and the relevant legislation (Article 206

para. 1 subpara. 20 of the Code).

     Sixthly, the applicants had associated themselves with the anti-

Greek activities of the illegal Union of Turkish Teachers and obeyed

their illegal orders. The statements they had made in their defence

contained propositions which had stirred up trouble in the field of

minority education. This had led to the involvement of Turkish

newspapers, to tension between Christians and Muslims and Greece and

Turkey and to criminal proceedings being instituted against parents who

had disrupted the functioning of the schools. As a result, the

applicants had committed the disciplinary offence of intentionally

engaging in an act or omission which could damage or endanger the

interests of the State (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 27).

     Seventhly, in the statements they had made in their defence the

applicants had claimed that the only books which the minority could

validly accept for the teaching of the Turkish language were books sent

by Turkey. However, the Board considered that this was a false

allegation and, as a result, the applicants had committed the

disciplinary offence of failing to respect a duty imposed by the

Criminal Code or another criminal law (Article 206 para. 1 subpara. 28

of the Code).

     Finally, the applicants had not complied with the orders of their

superiors but had obeyed unlawful decisions of the illegal Union of

Turkish Teachers which engaged in anti-Greek activities in order to

disrupt social peace in Thrace. As a result, they had committed the

disciplinary offence of serious disobedience (207 para. 4 subpara. 10).

     In the light of all the above, the Board decided to impose on the

applicants the disciplinary penalty of dismissal.

     On 30 May 1994 the applicants challenged the decision of the

Disciplinary Board before the Council of State and asked for interim

measures. On a date which has not been specified, their request for

interim measures was rejected.

     On 22 June 1995 the Council of State rejected their appeal. The

Council noted that the applicants had not been invited to make a

statement in their defence. However, they had failed to raise the issue

when they had appeared before the Regional Disciplinary Board. The

Council also considered that the inquiry ordered on 20 February 1993

satisfied the requirements of the law and that the Board had not failed

to examine any witnesses proposed by the applicants. The Council

further considered that the applicants had not been punished for any

facts which were not mentioned in the decision of 5 February 1993 by

which the disciplinary proceedings had been instituted. However, the

Disciplinary Board and the Council of State remained free to examine

these facts under different legal provisions from those mentioned in

the decision of 5 February 1993.

     The Council considered that the applicants had committed the

disciplinary offence of serious disobedience in that they had failed

to attend the educational meeting of 1 February 1993. On the same day

the applicants had signed a declaration in which it was stated that,

on 31 January 1993 and in their capacity as members of a de facto

executive committee for Muslim teachers, they had convened a general

meeting of Muslim teachers graduates of the Special Teachers' Academy

in which they had decided not to take part in the educational meeting,

not to perform their duties between 1 and 5 February 1993 and to refuse

to collect the Turkish language books. The Council took into

consideration the circumstances in which the offence had occurred,

namely the statement of 26 January 1993 of the Coordination Committee

of the Highest Council of the Muslim Turkish Minority of Western Thrace

and the statement of 29 January 1993 of the Union of Turkish Teachers

of Western Thrace. The Council considered that the applicants had

obviously associated their failure to comply with the order to attend

the educational meeting and their participation in the de facto

executive committee with the above-mentioned statements of

organisations which purported to represent the self-proclaimed Turkish

minority of Western Thrace. The Council found that the punishment

imposed was appropriate because the applicants' actions had had as a

result the disruption of the functioning of the minority schools in

Western Thrace in which the State was particularly interested. They had

also resulted in social unrest among the Muslim minority of this

sensitive region. This in turn could have resulted in a dangerous

albeit unwarranted disruption of the friendly relations between Greece

and neighbouring countries and in the disruption of the harmonious

coexistence between the Greek citizens, Muslim and Christian, who lived

in Western Thrace.

     Finally, the Council considered that the decision of the Board

was duly reasoned. All the elements of the disciplinary offence of

serious disobedience were set out in the decision, which specified that

the applicants had not attended the educational meeting of 1 February,

although they had been asked to do so by their superiors. The decision

also specified that the applicants had complied with the order of the

illegal Union of Turkish Teachers calling on the Muslim teachers who

felt Turkish not to attend the above-mentioned meeting.

COMPLAINTS

1.   The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about

the unfairness of the decisions ordering and upholding their dismissal.

They stress that it was obvious that the Disciplinary Boards and the

Council of State took into consideration the statements of the various

organs of the minority when deciding to impose such a harsh penalty.

They submit that this was illegal.

2.   They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that they

were punished with dismissal for having participated in a peaceful

collective mobilisation intended to express their discontent with "the

chronic problems of the minority education system".

3.   Finally, they complain of a violation of Article 9 of the

Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, because the aim of their

protest, for which they were punished, was to safeguard the right of

minority parents to educate their children in conformity with their own

religious and philosophical convictions. In their observations in

reply, the applicants indicated that they wished to complain of a

violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 also in their capacity of

parents of minority schools pupils.

4.   In their observations in reply the first seven applicants have

raised an additional complaint under Articles 9 and 14 that their

appeals to the Council of State against the disciplinary awards did not

have suspensive effect. The applicants submit that this rule applies

only in the case of appeals lodged by minority school teachers, who are

by definition Muslim, and not to appeals lodged by other civil

servants.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 14 December 1995 and registered

on 9 January 1996.

     On 2 September 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

     The Government's written observations were submitted on 15

January 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicants replied on 15 April 1997, also after an

extension of the time-limit.

THE LAW

1.   The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention about the unfairness of the decisions ordering and upholding

their dismissal from the civil service.

     Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, provides as follows:

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

     any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair

     ... hearing ... by (a) ... tribunal ..."

     The Government submit that the proceedings in question did not

involve a determination of the applicants' civil rights and

obligations. As a result, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention did not apply.

     The Commission recalls that, according to the case-law of the

Court, 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 because they do not

involve a determination of civil rights and obligations (Eur. Court HR,

Neigel v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, No. 32,

paras. 43 and 44). The applicants were civil servants. It follows that

the proceedings in question did not involve a determination of the

applicants' civil rights and obligations within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

     The Commission, moreover, considers that the proceedings were

exclusively disciplinary in character and led to no deprivation of

liberty. It follows that they did not involve the determination of a

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

the Convention (No. 15965/90, Dec. 15.1.93, D.R. 74, p. 76).

     The Commission, therefore, finds that Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) did not apply to the proceedings in question. As a result,

this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with

its Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

2.   The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 11 (Art. 9, 11) of

the Convention that they were punished with dismissal for having

participated in a peaceful collective mobilisation intended to express

their discontent with "the chronic problems of the minority education

system" and to safeguard the right of minority parents to educate their

children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical

convictions. When communicating the application, the Commission also

invited observations under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.

     Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention provides as follows:

     "1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

     and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion

     or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others

     and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief,

     in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

     2.   Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be

     subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are

     necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public

     safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or

     for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

     Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, insofar as relevant,

provides as follows:

     "1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This

     right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and

     impart information and ideas without interference by public

     authority and regardless of frontiers. ...

     2.   The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

     duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,

     conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law

     and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of

     national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

     the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

     or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of

     others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in

     confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of

     the judiciary."

     Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention provides as follows:

     "1.  Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

     to freedom of association with others, including the right to

     form and to join trade unions for the protection of his

     interests.

     2.   No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these

     rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary

     in a democratic society in the interests of national security or

     public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

     protection of health or morals or for the protection of the

     rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the

     imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights

     by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the

     administration of the State."

     The Government submit that, as it transpires from the decisions

of the Council of State, the applicants were punished only because they

had refused to attend the meeting of 1 February 1993, as they had been

ordered by their hierarchical superiors. Although the applicants argue

that they decided not to carry out their duties on that date in order

to take part in a peaceful collective mobilisation, the Convention does

not guarantee the right to strike. In any event, the applicants argued

before the domestic authorities that they had refused to attend the

meeting in question because they had been threatened by other members

of the Muslim minority. Moreover, they did not invoke Articles 9 and

10 (Art. 9, 10) of the Convention expressly or in substance. As a

result, the Government argue that the applicants have not exhausted

domestic remedies.

     The applicants submit that they had the right to strike under the

Convention. They also argue that they were punished because of their

association with the bodies which had organised the collective action.

The Council of State acted in their cases as a court of law and fact

and, as a result, it had to apply the Convention, which is part of

domestic law, proprio motu. The Council of State failed to do so. It

follows that, even if the applicants had invoked the relevant

Convention provisions, this would have served no useful purpose. In any

event, the applicants consider that they were dispensed from the

obligation to invoke the Convention because in Greece there exists an

administrative practice of discriminatory measures against the Muslim

minority. The respondent Government's objection concerning exhaustion

of domestic remedies is raised abusively.

     The Commission notes that, according to the Council of State, the

applicants were punished for serious disobedience, a disciplinary

offence, in that they had failed to attend the educational meeting of

1 February 1993 in order to participate in a strike. Moreover,

according to the Council of State, dismissal was the appropriate

penalty in the particular circumstances of the case because the

applicants had associated their failure to attend the meeting in

question with the statements of certain organisations which affirmed

the "Turkish" identity of the minority of Western Thrace and, by doing

so, they, inter alia, disrupted the harmonious coexistence between the

Greek citizens, Muslim and Christian, who lived in Western Thrace. The

Commission, therefore, considers that the applicants were punished both

for having participated in a strike and for certain views which they

were deemed to have expressed by doing so.

     According to the case-law of the Commission, complaints

concerning the right to strike fall to be examined under Article 11

(Art. 11) of the Convention, which is the lex specialis in relation to

Articles 9 and 10 (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom,

Comm. Report 14.12.79, para. 172, Eur. Court HR, Series B no. 39, p.

48). However, the Commission does not exclude that a separate issue

could arise under Article 10 of the Convention, since the Council of

State clearly indicated that dismissal would not have been the

appropriate penalty for failure to attend a one-day meeting, if the

applicants had not, by their actions, sought to express the idea that

a "Turkish" minority existed Eur. Court HR, Ahmet Sadik v. Greece

judgment of 15 November 1996, to be published in Reports 1996, para.

33).

     Insofar as Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention is concerned,

the Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether the

applicants have exhausted domestic remedies. According to the case-law

of the Commission, Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention does not

guarantee the right of civil servants to strike (No. 10365/83, Dec.

5.7.84, D.R. 39 p. 237). It follows that no appearance of a violation

of this provision arises in this connection.

     The Commission, therefore, considers that the part of the

application which concerns the applicants' punishment for their

participation in a strike is manifestly ill-founded and must be

rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3.   Insofar as Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention is concerned,

the Commission recalls that the applicants received a harsher penalty

because, by participating in the strike, they were deemed to have

expressed the view that the minority in Western Thrace has a "Turkish"

identity and this had, inter alia, disrupted the harmonious coexistence

between the Greek citizens, Muslim and Christian, who lived in the

area. Moreover, in another case the Commission considered that it

constituted an impermissible limitation of the right of freedom of

expression to find somebody guilty of "sowing discord" among the

citizens on the ground that he had used the term "Turkish" to refer to

the Muslim minority of Western Thrace in the context of an electoral

campaign (Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, Comm. Report 4.4.95, paras. 53-54, to

be published in Eur. Court HR, Reports 1996).

     However, the Commission also recalls that under Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with a matter after all

domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally

recognised rules of international law. Moreover, according to the case-

law of the Commission and the Court, the fact that a domestic court is

competent to examine proprio motu grounds amounting to a violation of

the Convention does not absolve the applicant from the obligation of

raising the complaint before the court himself (No. 11244/84, Dec.

2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98; Eur. Court HR, Ahmet Sadik v. Greece judgment

of 15 November 1996, to be published in Reports 1996, para. 33).

     In the circumstances of the case, the applicants have not in any

manner affirmed before the Council of State their right to express the

view that the minority to which they belong had a "Turkish" identity.

As a result, whether or not the Council of State had the obligation to

apply Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention proprio motu is

immaterial. Moreover, the applicants have failed to substantiate their

allegations that their dismissals form part of an administrative

practice of discriminatory measures against the Muslim minority. It

follows that the applicants have failed to exhaust domestic remedies

in accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention in this

connection.

     The Commission, therefore, considers that the part of the

application which concerns the applicants' harsher punishment for the

views they were deemed to have expressed by participating in the strike

must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of

the Convention.

4.   The applicants complain of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-2), because the aim of their protest, for which they were

punished, was to safeguard the right of minority parents to educate

their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical

convictions.

     The Government submit that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2)

guarantees rights for pupils and their parents and not for the

teachers. In any event, the applicants have not exhausted domestic

remedies. The applicants reiterate the arguments they have raised about

exhaustion of the domestic remedies in connection with the issues under

Articles 10 and 11 (Art. 10, 11).

     The Commission considers that, insofar as the applicants complain

under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) in their capacity as teachers,

they cannot claim to be victims of a violation of this provision. This

part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded and must

be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

5.   In the observations in reply they submitted on 15 January 1997

the first seven applicants also contended that they were parents of

children who attended minority schools and wished to complain of a

violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) in that capacity as

well.

     However, the Commission considers that it cannot examine this

complaint, because the requirements of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention have not been complied with in this connection. The

applicants in question have not invoked before the Council of State the

right to educate their children in conformity with their own religious

and philosophical convictions and have not submitted the complaint to

the Commission within the six-month period provided for in Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention.

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

accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

6.   In their observations in reply the first seven applicants

complained under Article 9 and 14 (Art. 9, 14) that their appeals to

the Council of State against the disciplinary awards did not have

suspensive effect.

     The Commission notes that the applicants have not raised this

complaint before the Council of State. Moreover, while the decisions

of the Council of State in the applicants' cases were issued on 22 June

1995 and the applicants obtained a copy later in the same year, this

complaint was first raised before the Commission on 15 April 1997.

     It follows that the applicants have not complied with the

requirements of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. This part of

the application must, therefore, be rejected in accordance with Article

27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

       H.C. KRÜGER                         S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                        President

     to the Commission                    of the Commission