Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25369/94

by Stephanos CHARALAMBOUS

against Cyprus

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 5 April 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

H.G. SCHERMERS

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 8 August 1994 by

Stephanos CHARALAMBOUS against Cyprus and registered on 5 October 1994

under file No. 25369/94;

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 Cypriot citizen and a police officer, born in

1936 and residing in the town of Nissou in Cyprus. In the proceedings

before the Commission he is represented by Mr. A. Demetriades, a lawyer

practising in Nicosia.

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

applicant, can be summarised as follows.

On 28 October 1985 eleven police officers, Messrs. AC, AD, AI,

AK, GK, NK, AM, MP, AS, AS and NS, were promoted to the rank of Chief

Inspector with effect from 1 March 1980.

A number of other officers, including the applicant and Messrs.

OG and MK, challenged the promotions. On 3 April 1987 the Supreme Court

annulled the relevant decision, on the ground that the Chief of Police

had given retrospective effect to the promotions without considering

the position of OG and MK who had been promoted to the same rank in

April 1984.

On 27 April 1987 the Chief of Police reconsidered the issue in

the light of the decision of the Supreme Court and decided to promote

the same eleven officers with retrospective effect as from

1 March 1980.

A number of officers, including the applicant, challenged the

promotions on a variety of grounds, but their objections were rejected

by a single judge of the Supreme Court on 18 October 1989. The

applicant appealed against the decision of the single judge, insofar

as it upheld the promotions of AD, AM and NS, claiming that the

relevant administrative decisions were inadequately reasoned and based

on mistaken considerations.

On 31 May 1993 the applicant was removed from his position as

Second in Command of the Rural Area of Nicosia and was transferred to

another post to be in charge of the police station of Pili in Paphos.

On 3 August 1993 he challenged the relevant decision before the Supreme

Court, without alleging, however, that his transfer constituted

discrimination on political grounds.

On 22 February 1994 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's

appeal of 18 October 1989, finding that the Chief of Police had not

taken into consideration the seniority of the applicant, his 19 awards

and his stance during the coup d'état of 1974.

On 7 March 1994 the Chief of Police decided to promote AD, AM and

NS as from 1 March 1980. On 10 March 1994 the applicant sent a letter

of protest to the President of the Republic and the Attorney General

accusing the Chief of Police of failure to comply with the judgment of

the Supreme Court.

On 18 May 1994 the applicant challenged before the Supreme Court

the decision of the Chief of Police of 7 March 1994, arguing, inter

alia, that he was being subjected to "oblique persecution". No further

elaboration of this allegation was provided.

The Supreme Court has not yet reached a decision on the

applicant's recourses for annulment of 3 August 1993 and 18 May 1994

which are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the

Convention of persecution because of his political beliefs. He argues

that it was because of his political beliefs that he was not promoted.

He further submits that his recent transfer constitutes evidence of

this persecution in that it amounts to a de facto demotion. Before his

transfer the applicant used to be in charge of the entire rural area

of Nicosia, whereas currently he is in charge of a small police

station.

2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the

Convention, in that, under Article 146 of the Constitution of Cyprus,

the Supreme Court is only empowered to annul administrative decisions.

The applicant has successfully challenged on two occasions the

promotion of certain police officers whom the Government subsequently

decided to re-promote. Even if the applicant wins his third recourse,

it cannot be excluded that the Government will promote the same police

officers again, as it has done on two occasions in the past.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Articles 9, 10 and 14

(Art. 9, 10, 14) of the Convention of persecution because of his

political beliefs on the ground that he has not been promoted on

several occasions and that his transfer amounts to a demotion.

The Commission notes that the applicant first raised his

complaints before the domestic courts in his recourse for annulment of

18 May 1994, when he challenged the failure of the Government to

promote him on the ground that it constituted "oblique persecution".

This recourse is, however, still pending. The Commission, moreover,

notes that the applicant did not raise any similar arguments in his

pending recourse for annulment of 3 August 1993 against his transfer.

In these circumstances the Commission considers that the

applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with

Article 26 (Art. 26) and that this part of the application must be

rejected as inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention in that he does not have an effective

remedy under domestic law for the alleged violation of his rights under

the Convention.

The Commission notes that the Supreme Court of Cyprus is

competent under domestic law to quash the decisions which allegedly

discriminate against the applicant. It also notes that the applicant

has raised his complaints before the Supreme Court in one of the two

recourses he has lodged which are still pending.

In these circumstances and assuming that the applicant has an

arguable claim under Articles 9, 10 and 14 (Art. 9, 10, 14) of the

Convention, the Commission considers that the case before it does not

disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention. As a result this part of the application must be rejected

as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

CHARALAMBOUS v. CYPRUS

CHARALAMBOUS v. CYPRUS