Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 12597/86

by K.W. HAUGHTON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 May 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 21 August 1986

by K.W. Haughton against the United Kingdom and registered

on 10 December 1986 under file No. 12597/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1959 and resident

in Gillingham, Kent. She is represented by Robin Murray, a solicitor.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant commenced employment with Olau Lines (United

Kingdom) Ltd on 24 June 1983 and worked as a cashier on a ferry boat

owned by the parent company of her employers, which was a German

company.

On or about 4 November 1983, the applicant alleges that she

was sexually harassed by a Purser, who asked her personal questions

concerning sexual relationships and who, when the applicant refused to

answer, threw some cigarette-lighters at her. The Purser then

suggested that the applicant was having a sexual relationship with a

particular member of the crew, which was untrue and threatened to

arrange for the applicant to lose her job.

The applicant complained of this harassment to her employers

in the United Kingdom. On 8 November 1983, she was informed by the

Personnel Officer that her complaint would not help her career. On or

about 9 November 1983 she was informed that the Pursers on both the

ship where she worked and its sister ship refused to allow her on

board as result of her complaint and that she could therefore no

longer work for the company.

The applicant commenced proceedings before an industrial

tribunal alleging that she had suffered unlawful sexual discrimination

by being sexually harassed and that she had been unlawfully victimised

in being dismissed after having made a complaint.

Before the industrial tribunal, her employers argued that the

tribunal had no jurisdiction pursuant to the wording of S. 6 (2) of

the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Section 6 (2) provides "It is

unlawful for a person, in the case of a woman employed by him at an

establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against her..." The

industrial tribunal accepted this argument and held that they had no

jurisdiction in the case. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to

the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant worked on a

German registered ship that 58.8% of her working hours were spent

outside the United Kingdom territorial waters and that accordingly she

was employed wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom. The court

rejected the applicant's argument that a ship cannot be regarded as an

establishment or that the establishment with which the applicant had

her closest connection was her employers' offices in the United

Kingdom. Her application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords

was refused on 7 March 1986.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of a violation of her private life in

that she has suffered sexual harassment and of discrimination. She

also complains that she is denied any effective remedy before a

national authority in respect of her complaints.

The applicant invokes Articles 8 para. 1, 13 and 14.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that she has suffered an interference

with her private life and discrimination contrary to Articles 8 and

14 (Art. 8, 14) of the Convention as a result of being sexually

harassed by a fellow employee and of being dismissed by her employers

following her complaint against the employee.

However, under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the

Convention, the Commission may only admit an application from a

person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals, where

the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of

the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party

has recognised this competence of the Commission. The Commission may

not, therefore, admit applications directed against private

individuals. In this respect the Commission refers to its constant

jurisprudence (see e.g. the decisions on the admissibility of

applications Nos. 172/56, Dec. 20.12.57, Yearbook 1 pp. 211, 215 and

3925/69, Dec. 2.1.70, Collection of Decisions 32 pp. 56, 58).

The Commission also finds that the applicant's complaints as

submitted by her do not disclose any elements which indicate that the

United Kingdom Government was subject to a duty imposed by Article 1

(Art. 1) of the Convention in respect of the alleged matters.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione personae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant also complains that she has been denied any

effective remedy before a national authority in respect of her

complaints contrary to Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.

The Commission observes that this provision is only applicable

when an applicant has an arguable claim that there has been a breach

of other rights and freedoms contained in the Convention (see e.g.

Boyle, X and Y v. United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9658 and 9659/82,

Comm. Report 7.5.86). However, in the present case, the Commission

has already found that the applicant's complaints under Article 8 and

14 (Art. 8, 14) of the Convention fall outside the scope of the

Convention and it has not found any appearance of a violation of any

of the other provisions of the Convention. There is therefore no

basis in the present case for the application of Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

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

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

HAUGHTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

HAUGHTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM