Search
document

Document text Analytics

H.P. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11056/84 • ECHR ID: 001-535

Document date: May 15, 1986

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

H.P. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11056/84 • ECHR ID: 001-535

Document date: May 15, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

15 May 1986, the following members being present:

MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1984 by

H.P. against the Netherlands and registered on 19 July 1984

under file No. 11056/84;

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 facts as they have been submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1945 and at present residing

at E., the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant joined the Netherlands office of the European Patent

Office (EPO) in Rijswijk on 1 July 1980 as an examiner at a certain

grade. He was at that time residing in the Federal Republic of

Germany.

On 12 October 1981, the applicant appealed to the President of the EPO

against his grading but this was rejected on 19 January 1982.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Appeals Committee,

but on 6 December 1982 the Committee recommended that his appeal be

rejected. By a letter of 29 December 1982 the President informed the

applicant that he endorsed that recommendation.

On 13 February 1983, the applicant appealed against this decision to

the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation

(ILO). This appeal was rejected on 20 December 1983.

On 30 August 1982, the applicant had also tried to obtain damages from

the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO because of travel expenses and

other costs incurred as a result of his appointment as an examiner in

the Netherlands. However, by judgment of 5 June 1984 the Tribunal

dismissed the applicant's complaint. On 9 August 1984 the applicant

requested a review of this decision but on 18 March 1985 his request

was rejected.

Apparently, in the absence of a final decision of the President of the

EPO both decisions did not yet come into force.

On 26 December 1985, the applicant requested the Administrative

Tribunal of the ILO to revise its decision of 20 December 1983. No

decision appears to have been given on this request.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains to have become the victim of violations of

Article 6 of the Convention (Art. 6) by the Netherlands, and the

Federal Republic of Germany. He alleges, inter alia, that he did not

have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal

concerning his complaints about certain decisions by the EPO relating

to his employment with that organisation. He also complains about a

violation of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 14 of the

Convention ((Art. 6, art. 14) with regard to the proceedings before the

Administrative Tribunal of the ILO since he claims that this Tribunal

discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained that he did not have a fair

hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal concerning his

complaints about certain decisions by the EPO. He has invoked

Article 6 of the Convention (Art. 6) which provides, inter alia:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a fair and

public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by

law.. "

The Commission notes that the applicant's complaints against the EPO

concerned his appointment at a certain grade and the reimbursement of

certain costs, incurred when taking up his appointment in the

Netherlands. These complaints must thus be considered as relating to

the modalities of the applicant's employment.

The Commission recalls its case-law according to which litigation

concerning access to, or dismissal from, civil service falls outside

the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 6-1)

(cf e.g. Dec. 7274/76, 8.3.76, DR 5 p. 157).

Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that litigation

concerning the modalities of employment as a civil servant, on either

the national or international level, also falls outside the scope of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 6-1). It follows that this

part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

of the Convention (Art. 27-2).

2. The applicant has further complained that he was discriminated

against on the basis of his national origin in the proceedings before

the ILO Administrative Tribunal, and he has invoked Article 14 of the

Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention

(Art. 6, art. 14)). Article 14 of the Convention provides (Art. 14):

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention

shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex,

race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national

or social origin, association with a national minority, property,

birth or other status. "

However, the Commission recalls that this provision only applies to

claims which fall within the scope of one of the substantive

provisions of the Convention. As the Commission found above that the

applicant's complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(Art. 6-1) were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, it

follows that the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the

Convention read in conjunction with that provision (Art. 6-1,

art. 14) must also be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with

the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

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

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant