Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80

November 2005

Revel and Mora v. France (dec.) - 171/03

Decision 15.11.2005 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Procedure undertaken by two civil servants to contest a decision concerning the appointment to a post of one of their colleagues: inadmissible

The applicants, who at the material time were civil servants working for the publicly-owned posts and telecommunications company, passed an internal competition for engineers and their names were placed on a list of employees awaiting transfer within the département , pending a vacancy which matched their qualifications. One of their colleagues, who had passed the same competition a few years later and whose name was on the same list, was appointed ahead of the applicants to a vacant engineer’s post in the département . The applicants, taking the view that the decisions to appoint their colleague and assign him to a post had been in breach of the order of transfers laid down by the list for the département and of the relevant domestic legislation, lodged an internal appeal against the decisions, which was dismissed by the company’s regional director. The applicants applied to the administrative court seeking the setting aside of the appointment and posting decisions and of the decisions dismissing their internal appeal. The administrative court granted their applications in full.

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The right to have the order of transfers laid down by the list for the département adhered to was linked to the applicants’ professional activity, but only their right to an individual appointment could be characterised as a “civil right”. The outcome of the proceedings in issue was not in itself capable of having an impact on the applicants’ careers within the company, or, in consequence, on their financial situation. Accordingly, the right which they had asserted could not be characterised as a civil right and the outcome of the impugned proceedings could have only remote consequences for the applicants’ civil rights: incompatible ratione materiae .

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes