Search
document

Document text Analytics

H.B. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19098/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1406

Document date: October 14, 1992

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

H.B. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19098/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1406

Document date: October 14, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19098/91

by H.B.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 9 September 1991

by H.B. against Austria and registered on 18 November 1991 under file

No. 19098/91;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

19098/91 - 2 -

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1921 and living

in Salzburg. He is represented by Messrs. Herbert Pfzlanzl and

Ägidius Horvatits, lawyers practising in Salzburg.

The applicant complains of the refusal by the Austrian

authorities to enter in his passport a title granted to him honoris

causa by a foreign university.

On 7 June 1989 the Federal Ministry for Science and Research

(Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung) granted the

applicant the authorisation to call himself "Doctor en administración

de empresas". This academic title had been granted to the applicant

on 16 March 1979 by the Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala

City as an honorary degree.

It is stated in the Federal Ministry's decision that according

to available information the university in question was renowned, and

conferred degrees more or less under the same conditions as domestic

universities.

The applicant's request to have his degree entered before his

name in his passport was however rejected by the competent authorities

on the ground that under Section 39 of the University Act (Allgemeines

Hochschul-Studiengesetz) honorary degrees obtained abroad could be

entered in the passport only if the Federal Ministry for Science and

Research had authorised such entry. While the applicant had been

authorised by this Ministry to call himself "Doctor en administracion

de empresas" or to use the abbreviation "Dr. h.c." he had not been

authorised to have this degree entered in his passport.

The applicant's ultimate recourse to the Constitutional Court

(Verfassungsgerichtshof) was not admitted for decision. In an order

of 25 February 1991 this Court stated that the constitutional complaint

raised issues which had already previously been decided in the Court's

jurisprudence and did not disclose any appearance of a violation of

constitutional rights. Furthermore the Court added that the matter

fell within the competence of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-

gerichtshof).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention,

arguing that the Constitutional Court's order does not deal with his

particular complaints which he considers to be different from those

dealt with in the previous jurisprudence referred to by the

Constitutional Court. He points out that in the previous jurisprudence

the Constitutional Court only dealt with the question whether or not

it was justified that the Austrian Administration distinguished between

academic degrees granted as a result of university studies as compared

with titles granted honoris causa. His complaint concerned however the

problem that the Austrian Administration made a distinction between

honorary degrees obtained abroad and honorary degrees obtained in

Austria.

As this issue was not especially dealt with in the

Constitutional Court's decision given in his case, he considers that

Article 6 of the Convention was violated.

- 3 - 19098/91

THE LAW

The applicant invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which,

in its relevant part, guarantees everyone "a fair and public hearing"

in respect of the "determination of two civil rights and

obligations..." Even assuming that proceedings before a Constitutional

Court can in principle be decisive for civil rights and obligations,

the Commission notes that the applicant is not forbidden to use his

honorary degree publicly. On the other hand an honorary degree does

not automatically form part of one's name and the question of whether

or not a person may add to his name an honorary degree in a public

document is of public concern and not a matter related to private law.

The constitutional court proceedings therefore did not relate to the

determination of a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1). In addition it has to be observed that a right to have

a foreign honorary degree entered in one's passport is not as such

guaranteed by the Convention either. It follows that the application

has to be rejected as being incompatible with the Convention ratione

materiae 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 First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant