Search
document

Document text Analytics

STAIKU v. GREECE

Doc ref: 35426/97 • ECHR ID: 001-3804

Document date: July 2, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

STAIKU v. GREECE

Doc ref: 35426/97 • ECHR ID: 001-3804

Document date: July 2, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 35426/97

by Dimitra STAIKU

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 3 January 1997 by

Dimitra STAIKU against Greece and registered on 25 March 1997 under

file No. 35426/97;

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 Greek citizen, born in 1943. She is a nurse

in the army and resides in Athens. In the proceedings before the

Commission she is represented by Messrs. V. Polichronopoulos and

P. Koukoulakos, both lawyers practising in Athens.

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

applicant, can be summarised as follows:

On 5 October 1960 the applicant joined the armed forces. On

23 June 1967 she was dismissed because she got married within less than

five years from joining the army, which was at the time against the

regulations.

On 31 December 1984 the applicant was rehired in the armed

forces, her dismissal having been considered to constitute a breach of

her fundamental rights. On 25 January 1988 the applicant requested that

she should be promoted to the rank which she would have had if she had

not remained outside the armed forces between 23 June 1967 and

31 December 1984. On 17 February 1988 she received a negative reply.

On 17 March 1988 the applicant challenged the refusal of the

authorities to promote her before the Administrative Court of Appeal

(Diikitiko Efetio) which was competent to hear the dispute as a first

instance court. The administrative court heard the case on

20 January 1989. On 21 February 1989 the court upheld the refusal of

the authorities on the ground that the law which provided for the

rehiring of the applicant did not provide for her full rehabilitation

insofar as rank was concerned. The court further considered that the

provisions of the Constitution of 1975 which guaranteed the free

development of one's personality and protected marriage and motherhood

did not create an obligation for the legislator to redress

retrospectively and in full a breach which had occurred before the

entry into force of the Constitution. If the legislator wished to

provide such redress it remained free to set the modalities.

On 14 February 1990 the applicant appealed to the Council of

State (Simvulio Epikratias), invoking inter alia Article 12 of the

Convention. The Council held a hearing on 16 November 1995. On

28 June 1996 the Council rejected her appeal with the same reasoning

as the Administrative Court of Appeal. The applicant was notified of

this decision on 13 November 1996.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 12 of the Convention about

her dismissal from the army.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 12 (Art. 12) of the

Convention about her dismissal from the army.

The Commission recalls that Greece has recognised the competence

of the Commission to examine individual applications concerning facts

which occurred after 19 November 1985. However, the applicant was

dismissed from the army on 23 June 1967.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione temporis and that it must be rejected as incompatible with the

provisions of the Convention under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

thereof.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention about the length of the proceedings she instituted to

challenge the refusal to promote her.

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 (Eur. Court HR,

Neigel v. France judgement of 17 March 1997, para. 43). The applicant

is a civil servant and the proceedings she instituted before the

administrative courts concerned her career. As a result, Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not apply.

It follows that this part of the application incompatible ratione

materiae and that it must be rejected as incompatible with the

provisions of the Convention under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

thereof.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant