Information Note on the Court’s case-law 13

December 1999

Pellegrin v. France [GC] - 28541/95

Judgment 8.12.1999 [GC]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Applicability of Article 6 to civil servants: no violation

(Extract from press release)

Facts : Gilles Pellegrin is a French national who was born in 1945 and lives in Bouroche. In 1989 he had been recruited as a technical advis er to the Minister for the Economy, Planning and Trade of Equatorial Guinea. As head of project, he was to be responsible for drawing up the budget of State investment for 1990 and was to participate in the preparation of the three-year plan and the three- year programme of public investment, in liaison with Guinean civil servants and international organisations. Subsequently, he contested a decision by the French Minister for Cooperation and Development not to offer him a new contract to work as a technical adviser overseas on the ground that he had been declared unfit to serve overseas after undergoing a medical examination. Legal proceedings which the applicant instituted on 16 May 1990 are still pending in the Paris Administrative Court. The applicant rel ies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time).

The applicant complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Law : Article 6 § 1 o f the Convention - The case concerned the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to disputes between States and their servants – an employee on a fixed-term contract in this case. The Court – reviewing its existing case-law on the question – considered that it sho uld put an end to the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to disputes about conditions of service between public servants and the States which employ them. To that end, it decided to apply a new, “functional” criterion, based on the nature of the employee’s duties and responsibilities. The Court accordingly ruled that the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were those raised by public servants whose duties typified the specific activities of the pu blic service in so far as the latter was acting as the depositary of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities. A manifest example of such activities was provided by the armed forces and the police. In practice, the Court will now seek to ascertain, in each case, whether the applicant’s post entails – in the light of the nature of the duties and responsibilities appertaining to it – direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers co nferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities. Thus, from now on, no disputes between administrative authorities and employees who occupy posts involving participation in the exerci se of powers conferred by public law attract the application of Article 6 § 1. On the other hand, disputes concerning pensions all come within the ambit of Article 6 § 1 because on retirement employees break the special bond between themselves and the auth orities. The facts of the case showed that the tasks assigned to the applicant gave him considerable responsibilities in the field of the State’s public finances, which was, par excellence , a sphere in which States exercised sovereign power. This entailed participating directly in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and the performance of duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State. Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 was not applicable in the case.

Conclusion : no violation (thirteen votes to four).

© 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