Search
document

Document text Analytics

GEORGIADOU AND 159 OTHERS v. GREECE

Doc ref: 34213/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3714

Document date: May 21, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

GEORGIADOU AND 159 OTHERS v. GREECE

Doc ref: 34213/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3714

Document date: May 21, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 34213/96

by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

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 16 September 1996

by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others against Greece and registered

on 18 December 1996 under file No. 34213/96;

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 applicants, whose names are available at the Commission's

Secretariat, are 160 Greek citizens. They are all employees of the

"I Elpis" municipal hospital in Athens. In the proceedings before the

Commission they are represented by Mr. I. Stamoulis, a lawyer

practising in Athens.

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

applicants, can be summarised as follows:

A. The particular circumstances of the case

By virtue of section 6 para. 2 of Law 754/1978, published in the

Government's Gazette (Efimerida Kiverniseos) on 15 February 1978, a

special allowance was granted to all employees of the State and legal

persons governed by public law (Nomika Prosopa Dimosiu Dikeu).

On 7 October 1982 the employees of the Athens Municipal Hospital

"I Elpis" claimed this allowance for the period between 1 January 1978

and 30 June 1981. On 22 November 1982 the governing body of the

hospital decided to satisfy their claim. In the relevant decision the

governing body expressly stated that, if the employees' claim had not

been granted, they would have instituted court proceedings relying on

the provisions of the Constitution prescribing equal treatment of all

State employees and they would have won. As a result, the hospital

would have had to bear the additional expenditure of the court costs

and expenses.

However, on an unspecified date, the Ministry of the Interior

ordered the hospital not to pay the allowance.

The applicants instituted proceedings before the First Instance

Multi-Member Civil Court (Polimeles Protodikio) of Athens. One group

lodged an action on 4 March 1983 and a second group lodged another

action on 4 May 1983. Both actions were rejected on 15 June 1987. The

applicants' appeals were rejected by the Court of Appeal (Efetio) of

Athens on 29 April 1989 and their appeals in cassation were rejected

by the Court of Cassation (Arios Pagos) on 19 March 1996.

The Court of Cassation noted that, according to section 12

para. 2 of Law 754/1978, the provisions of this law would apply to

local authorities' employees only to the extent that it would be so

decided by the competent ministers. However, section 6 para. 2 was not

among the provisions of Law 754/1978 which the Ministers of the

Interior and Finance decided should apply to local authorities'

employees (decision No. 25639/30.3.1978). This was not against the

constitutional provisions on equal treatment of State employees,

because the position of the employees of local authorities was

different from that of other employees of the State. Moreover, the

decision of 22 November 1982 of the governing body of the hospital did

not give rise to any contractual rights for the plaintiffs, since it

had been expressly linked to the principle of equal treatment under the

Constitution which, however, could not be relied on by the plaintiffs

to claim the allowance.

B. Relevant domestic practice

By decision No. 6/1992 the Court of Cassation decided that it

would be against the constitutional provisions on equal treatment of

State employees not to grant the allowance of section 6 para. 2 of

Law 754/1978 to the employees of non-municipal State hospitals.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an

allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees

of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14

of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an

allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees

of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) taken on its own or in conjunction with

Article 14 (P1-1+14) of the Convention.

The Commission recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, a

claim can constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provided that it is sufficiently established (see

No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146; No. 7775/77, Dec. 5.10.78,

D.R. 15, p. 143; see also Eur. Court HR, Stran Greek Refineries and

Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A

no. 301, p. 84, para. 89). However, the applicants' claim was refused

by all the courts which examined it. It cannot, therefore, constitute

a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

As a result, the applicants' complaint under that provision is

incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.

The Commission further recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention has no independent existence in the sense that it relates

only to rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The

applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is

incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

It follows that the applicants cannot complain under Article 14

(Art. 14) of the Convention of discrimination in the enjoyment of a

right guaranteed by the Convention. As a result, this complaint as well

is incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.

The Commission, therefore, considers that the application must

be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention in

accordance with 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