Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43

June 2002

Koskinas v. Greece - 47760/99

Judgment 20.6.2002 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Scope of judicial review of the grounds for dismissal from employment: violation

Facts : The applicant, a steward for the airline company Olympic Airways, was dismissed on suspicion of having indecently assaulted passengers, which he denied. The decision by the airline’s dismissals board, against which no appeal lay, informed him that compensation would be paid. The applicant brought an action in the Athens Court of First Instance asking for his dismissal to be set aside and claiming compensa tion for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that insufficient reasons had been given for the decision, that it was arbitrary and that the compensation awarded was ridiculously small. The court set aside the dismissal decision and ordered the applicant to be r einstated in his post and the airline to pay him damages. The court held in particular that the dismissal decision was unfounded because it had been taken without the applicant’s guilt having been established. This judgment was quashed on application by th e airline. The Athens Court of Appeal pointed out that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction to examine the merits of the dismissals board’s decision: their jurisdiction was confined to reviewing the lawfulness of the decision and its conformity with the principles of good faith and morality. The decision to dismiss the applicant was upheld as being justified and lawful. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that the dismissals board had given sufficient reasons for its decis ion.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The applicant complained that there was no evidence in support of the charges brought against him and that his dismissal was therefore unfounded. In applying to the courts, he was asking them to examine the truthfulness of the c harges on which the decision to dismiss him had been based. Such a review had only been carried out by the Court of First Instance, whose decision had been set aside by the higher courts, which had considered that they did not have jurisdiction to examine the truthfulness of the charges.  Their jurisdiction had been confined to reviewing the lawfulness of the impugned decision and its conformity with the principles of good faith and morality. The applicant had therefore been unable to challenge the accusati ons against him before any court whose jurisdiction offered the guarantees required under Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

© 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