Papadopoulos v. Greece



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17733/91

by Andreas PAPADOPOULOS

against Greece

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 April 1992, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 January 1991 by

Andreas PAPADOPOULOS against Greece and registered on 29 January 1991

under file No. 17733/91;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1946. He is an economist

residing in London. He is represented before the Commission by Mr.

Yannis Chrysospathis, a lawyer practising in Athens.

On 19 July 1984, the applicant was appointed at a post of

economic adviser at the Permanent Greek representation in Brussels by

a ministerial decision of the Minister of National Economy. He signed

to this effect a three year private contract of employment. By

ministerial decision of 15 April 1986 the applicant's post in Brussels

was converted as from 18 september 1984 into a provisional post and his

contract into a private agreement for employment for an indefinite

time.

On 17 November 1986, the Minister of National Economy decided to

transfer the applicant to the Central Service in Athens. This decision

was annulled by judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal

(Dioikitiko Efeteio) of Athens on 5 June 1987. The applicant had

previously obtained from that Court an order of suspension of the

execution of the challenged decision.

On 27 March 1987, the Minister of National Economy and of the

Government's Presidency decided to abolish the applicant's post in

Brussels. As a result of this decision the applicant was dismissed on

5 May 1987. The applicant appealed against the above decisions. By

judgment N° 2403/1989 of 7 July 1989 the Council of State (Symvoulio

tis Epikrateias) accepted the appeal and annulled both the ministerial

decision and the dismissal. The Council of State found that the

challenged ministerial decision was not sufficiently motivated.

On 5 July 1990, a further ministerial decision abolished ex tunc,

i.e. as from 30 March 1987, the applicant's post. An appeal against

this decision was lodged with the Council of State.

The hearing of the case before this court was adjourned three

times, the last on 30 January 1992.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of the ministerial decision of 5 July

1990 He submits that having regard to the attitude of the

administration which insists on its decisions notwithstanding the

judgments annulling them, he is in fact deprived of an effective

judicial protection within a reasonable time by an independent and

impartial tribunal. He invokes in this respect Articles 6 and 13 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of

the Convention that due to the attitude of the administration he is

deprived of an effective judicial protection.

However, even assuming that the provisions invoked apply in the

present case, the Commission finds that, contrary to the applicant's

submissions, the administrative courts' judgments annulling the

ministerial decisions concerning him have been plainly effective and

that it is not established that the administration implemented in any

way whatsoever the annulled decisions.

As far as the applicant complains of the ministerial decision of

5 July 1990 and in particular of the effect ex tunc of this decision,

the Commission recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention it cannot deal with a case before the exhaustion of the

domestic remedies. It notes that the subject-matter of the application

is presently pending before the competent Greek courts. Moreover, the

Commission cannot conclude that these proceedings are doomed to fail

or that the administration will refuse to abide by the judgments of

these courts in case they are in the applicant's favour.

The Commission finds therefore that the applicant has not

exhausted the domestic remedies under Greek law. Moreover the

examination of the case has not disclosed any special circumstances

absolving the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules

of international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic

remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the application must be declared inadmissible in

accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by majority,

DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)