Communicated on 10 February 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25527/13 Fernando VICENT DEL CAMPO against Spain lodged on 2 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Fernando Vicent Del Campo , is a Spanish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Villavente . He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Rodriguez Gonzalez , a lawyer practising in Leon .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 9 January 2006 M.C.B.M., a teacher in an Art School, filed a complaint with the Council of Education of Castilla -Leon against the applicant. She claimed that the applicant, her superior in the arts school, had subjected her to workplace harassment since the academic year 2000/2001, particularly in the form of false accusations, insults, death threats, high-handed and discriminatory behaviour , and demeaning remarks about her work in the presence of students, parents and colleagues, as well as taking reprisals against her students. The administration decided against M.C.B.M.

On 20 June 2006 M.C.B.M filed an administrative liability claim with the Council of Education of Castilla -Leon. She sought compensation for a malfunctioning of the administration, since it had failed to react against the applicant ’ s misbehaviour . The administration did not provide M.C.B.M. with an express decision within the statutory time-limit.

On 25 January 2007 she lodged an action ( recurso contencioso-administrativo ) with the Castilla-León High Court of Justice to establish pecuniary liability of the Administration due to the inaction of the Council of Education of Castilla -Leon. On 2 November 2011 the High Court of Justice ruled against the Administration. It conducted a detailed and systematic analysis of the literature and administrative case-law on workplace harassment and of the evidence produced in the hearing to conclude that there had been workplace harassment, against which the inspection services had failed to react promptly and effectively. M.C.B.M. was awarded EUR 14,500 as compensation.

On 15 December 2011 the applicant requested to be heard as a party to the proceedings insofar as the content of that judgment affected his reputation. On 23 January 2012 the High Court of Justice of Castilla -Leon rejected the applicant ’ s request. He could not be considered a “concerned party” in liability proceedings brought against the Administration.

On 2 March 2012 the remedy for the annulment of the proceedings the applicant had presented before the High Court of Justice of Castilla -Leon was rejected, on both procedural and substantive grounds. It firstly held that the applicant had failed to respect the statutory time-limit to introduce a remedy for the annulment of the proceedings. However, it went on to decide on the merits. It ruled that, according to the legislation in force, administrative liability proceedings could be pressed exclusively against the Administration as an institution, and not against the natural person invested with authority or against the civil servant allegedly responsible for the malfunctioning, who accordingly could not be held liable to pay any compensation to the victim. Correspondingly, the legislation did not award the victim standing in this sort of proceedings. In the judgment, it acknowledged that the honor and moral integrity of the relevant authority or civil servant who had provoked the malfunctioning could be affected by the judicial decisions in this sort of proceedings, particularly when the person responsible was clearly identified, as in the instant case. However, it concluded that such a possibility did not give rise to a right to take part in the proceedings which, in any case, was something restricted by law.

The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court invoking his right to a fair hearing. By a decision served on 9 October 2012 the appeal was declared inadmissible as devoid of special constitutional significance.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Law 30/1992, of 26 November, on the Legal System of Public Administrations and Common Administrative Procedure

Article 31 § 1

“ 1. There shall be considered concerned party in the administrative proceeding

( ... )

b) Those who, without having initiated the proceeding, have rights that may be affected by the decision eventually adopted.”

2. Law 29/1998, of 13 July, on Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction

Article 48 § 1

“ 1. The Clerk (...) will order the Administration (...) to proceed to summon under Article 49 .”

Article 49

"1. The decision (...) shall be notified within five days after its adoption to every concerned party . They will be summoned so that they can participate in the proceeding (...) within nine days. The notification shall be made in accordance to the Law governing the Common Administrative Procedure .

( ... )

3. Once received the case-file, the Clerk ( ... ) will verify that every summon has been executed and, otherwise, he will order the Administration to make the missing summons to ensure the defence of those concerned parties that are identifiable.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to complain against not having been summoned to the adversarial administrative proceedings, which deprived him of access to a court . Under Article 8, in conjunction with 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decision taken by the domestic courts failed to ensure respect with his right to honou r and reputation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the failure to summon the applicant, as a concerned party with interests at stake, to the adversarial administrative proceedings before the High Court of Justice of Castilla -Leon breach the applicant ’ s right to access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of Convention? (See, Cañete de Goñi v. Spain , n o 55782/00, CEDH 2002 VIII).

2. Did the national courts, in particular the High Court of Justice of Castilla -Leon, take all the necessary and appropriate measures that could reasonably be expected of them to ensure that the decision taken would not affect the applicant ’ s honour and reputation under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention?