EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 18357/91
D. and A.A. H.
against
Greece
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 23 October 1995)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. The application
(paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
C. The present Report
(paras. 13-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 18-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. The particular circumstances of the case
(paras. 18-42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
(paras. 43-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 45-61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
A. Complaint declared admissible
(para. 45). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
B. Point at issue
(para. 46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 47-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
CONCLUSION
(para. 60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS. . . . . . . . . . . 11
DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ . . . . . . . . . . . 12
APPENDIX I: HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 14
APPENDIX II: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 15
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicants are United Kingdom citizens, born in 1937 and
1939 respectively, and resident in Rhodes, Greece.
3. The application is directed against Greece. The respondent
Government were represented by their Agent Mr. L. Papidas, President
of the Legal Advisory Council of State, and Mr. P. Kamarineas, Member
of the Legal Advisory Council of State.
4. The case concerns the failure of State authorities to comply with
an administrative court decision. The applicants invoke Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 7 January 1990 and registered
on 14 June 1991.
6. On 30 June 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant
to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to
submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.
7. The Government's observations were submitted on 10 December 1993
after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose. The
applicants replied on 17 February 1994.
8. On 31 August 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the
application admissible.
9. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 27 September 1994 and they were invited to submit
such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.
On 1 November 1994 the Government submitted supplementary observations
requesting the Commission to declare the application inadmissible under
Article 29 of the Convention in the light of the presidential decree
No. 211/1994 which had been promulgated shortly before the Commission's
decision on admissibility. On 10 November 1994 the applicants submitted
supplementary information. On 26 February and 9 March 1995 the
applicants submitted comments on the Government's request for the
application to be declared inadmissible under Article 29 of the
Convention, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this
purpose.
10. On 11 April 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided not to
grant the Government's request to declare the application inadmissible
under Article 29 of the Convention.
11. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the
Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement
can be effected.
12. On 17 October 1995, the Commission decided that the case should
be examined by the Plenary.
C. The present Report
13. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in
pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and
votes, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
C.L. ROZAKIS
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
14. The text of this Report was adopted on 23 October 1995 by the
Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
15. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is:
(i) to establish the facts, and
(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose
a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under
the Convention.
16. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the
Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's
decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.
17. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the
documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The particular circumstances of the case
18. On 5 June 1984 the second applicant applied to the Direction of
Secondary Education of the Prefecture of Rhodes for a licence to
establish a foreign language private school (frontistirio). On
5 June 1984 she was informed that, according to the legislation in
force, foreign nationals could not be granted a licence to establish
such a school.
19. By judgment No. 147/86 of 15 March 1988 (European Commission
v. The Hellenic Republic) the European Court of Justice declared that
"by prohibiting nationals of other member States from setting up
'frontistiria' ... the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty."
20. On 1 April 1988 the second applicant lodged a further application
to the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes for a licence to
establish a foreign language school. A separate application was lodged
on the same day by the first applicant. On 12 April 1988 both
applications were rejected on the ground that the licences requested
could not be granted to foreign nationals.
21. On 8 June 1988 the applicants filed a recourse for annulment
(aitisi akyroseos) before the Council of State (Symvoulio tis
Epikrateias).
22. On 15 September 1988 the Director of Secondary Education of
Rhodes informed the applicants that the question of granting licences
for foreign language schools to foreign nationals remained pending.
23. On 23 November 1988 the applicants wrote to the Prime Minister
asking him to ensure that all necessary steps were taken to comply with
the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 15 March 1988.
24. The Council of State held a hearing in the applicants' case on
11 April 1989.
25. On 9 May 1989 the Council of State delivered its judgment
No. 1337/1989 on the recourse for annulment of the first applicant. On
10 May 1989 it delivered judgment No. 1361/1989 on the second
applicant's recourse. The Council of State found that, in accordance
with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, nationals of member
States of the European Community could not be prevented from
establishing foreign language schools in Greece since 1 January 1981
on the basis that they were "foreigners". It annulled the decisions of
the Ministry of National Education.
26. On 3 July 1989 a third party appeal (tritanakopi) was lodged
before the Council of State by two associations of owners of foreign
language schools and three owners of foreign language schools in Rhodes
against the applicants and the decisions Nos. 1337/1989 and 1361/1989
of the Council of State.
27. On 8 August 1989 the applicants lodged new applications
requesting the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes to enforce
the decisions of the Council of State and grant them the licence to
establish a foreign language school.
28. On 27 February 1990 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Director
of Secondary Education of Rhodes asking him to grant the above-
mentioned licences.
29. On 28 March 1990 the applicants lodged a criminal action against
the Director and all other competent officials under Article 259 of the
Criminal Code, which provides for the punishment of State employees who
intentionally do not fulfil their duties as civil servants with the
purpose of providing illegal profit to themselves or other persons or
harming the state or other persons.
30. On 20 April 1990 the applicants brought their complaints to the
attention of the Minister of Education.
31. On 14 November 1990 the applicants sued the administration before
the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes (Polimeles Protodikeio
Rhodou). The second applicant asked for 41,109,200 drachmas for actual
damages and loss of earnings she had incurred between 1984 and 1990 as
a result of the refusal of the administration to comply with the
decision of the Council of State. The first applicant asked for
30,025,200 drachmas for actual damages and loss of earnings he had
incurred between 1988 and 1990 for the same reason. Each of them asked
for 50,000,000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage.
32. On 14 January 1991 the applicants addressed themselves again to
the Minister of Education.
33. On 25 April 1991 the Council of State by decisions Nos. 2185/91
and 2186/91 rejected the third party appeal lodged by the owners of
foreign language schools and their associations on 3 July 1989.
34. On 29 July 1991 the applicants addressed themselves once more to
the Minister of Education. On 25 October 1991 they sent a letter to the
Minister in charge of the Presidency of the Government (Ipourgos
Proedrias).
35. On 20 January 1992 the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes by
decision No. 32/92 declared itself incompetent to examine the
applicants' action for damages of 14 November 1990, which had to be
submitted to an administrative court.
36. On 3 July 1992 the applicants introduced their action for
compensation before the administrative courts.
37. On 14 January 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director
of Secondary Education of Rhodes had written to the Ministry of
Education inquiring whether the applicants should be granted the
licence, in the light of the decision No. 2185/91 of the Council of
State.
38. On 3 May 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director of
Secondary Education of Rhodes had addressed a further letter to the
Ministry of Education reminding the Ministry that the applicants'
request for a licence remained pending, despite the fact that two years
had already passed since the decision of the Council of State. The
letter referred to three previous letters addressed to the Ministry
which remained unanswered.
39. On 22 October 1993 the criminal action lodged by the applicants
on 28 March 1990 was rejected by the First Instance Criminal Court of
Rhodes (Plimeleiodikeio Rhodou). The court considered that, although
the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes had acted unlawfully in
refusing the applicants' requests, the mens rea element of the offence
provided for under Article 259 of the Criminal Code was not present.
40. On 22 August 1994 the presidential decree No. 211/1994 was
promulgated giving Community nationals the right to establish
frontistiria in Greece. Community nationals who did not have a Greek
high school certificate were, however, required to pass an examination
in Greek language and history.
41. On 20 October 1994 the Ministry of Education requested the
Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes to resume examination of the
applicants' case in the light of the presidential decree No. 211/1994.
42. On 14 February 1995 the President of the Commission of the
European Community informed a member of the European Parliament that
the Commission intended to commence further legal proceedings against
Greece because "the Greek legislation (concerning the establishment of
frontistiria) continue(d) to contain provisions contrary to the
Community principles of non-discrimination, in spite of the repeal of
the express nationality clause".
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
43. Article 2 of the presidential decree No. 221/1994 provides as
follows:
"In addition to what is provided for under Article 68
para. 1 of the emergency law 2545/1940 on private schools,
frontistiria and boarding schools, licences to establish a
frontistirio shall also be granted to nationals of the
member States of the European Union, provided they have the
qualifications required by law for granting such a licence
to a Greek national. The European Union nationals shall be
required to produce similar supporting documents as well as
the certificate provided for under Article 14 para. 10 of
law 1566/1985, which shall apply by analogy."
Article 14 para. 10 of law 1566/1985 provides the following:
"If the candidates ..... do not hold a Greek high school
certificate, a certificate shall be required to the effect
that they are fluent in Greek and know Greek history. To
obtain such a certificate the candidates must pass an
examination, as the Ministry of Education and Religious
Affairs will decide."
44. Under Article 95 para. 5 of the Greek Constitution all
administrative authorities must comply with the decisions of the
Council of State which set aside acts of the administration.
Article 50 para. 4 of the presidential decree No. 18/1989
provides that the administrative authorities, in fulfilling their
obligations under Article 95 para. 5 of the Constitution, must comply
with the decisions of the Council of State by either taking positive
measures or refraining from any action which is contrary to the
decision, depending on the circumstances of each case.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaint declared admissible
45. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint
that the State authorities failed to comply within a reasonable time
with the decisions of the Council of State which set aside an
administrative act refusing to grant them a licence to establish a
foreign language school.
B. Point at issue
46. The point at issue is whether the State authorities' failure to
comply within a reasonable time with the decisions of the Council of
State amounts to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
47. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as
relevant, provides the following:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
....., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. ...."
48. The applicants submit that the proceedings before the Council of
State complied with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
They argue, however, that the State authorities' continuing refusal to
comply with the decisions of the Council of State violates their right
to effective judicial protection in the determination of their civil
rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
49. The Greek Government do not contest that the proceedings before
the Council of State involved a determination of the applicants' civil
rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention. They submit, however, that the requirements of this
provision were complied with, since the applicants had a fair and
public hearing and the Council of State issued its decision within a
reasonable time. Once the Council of State issued a decision which
determined the dispute between the applicants and the administrative
authorities, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) was no longer applicable. The
Government submit that the stage of execution of a court decision does
not involve a new determination of rights. To argue the contrary would
go against the letter of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and the
intentions of the drafters of the Convention. In any event, the
compliance or not of the State authorities with Council of State
decisions which quash administrative acts is clearly a public law
issue. In the light of all the above, the Government conclude that
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was not violated.
50. The Commission observes at the outset that the applicants do not
complain of the length of the proceedings before the Council of State,
but "of the length of time taken by the Greek Ministry of Education to
deal with their applications" which had as a result that the decisions
of the Council of State remained unenforced.
51. It further observes that the applicability of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention to the proceedings instituted by the
applicants before the Council of State is not disputed between the
parties. The Commission recalls in this connection that the refusal of
the competent authority to allow a private school to provide the higher
stages of compulsory education has already been found to give rise to
a determination of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para.
1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Jordebo Foundation of Christian Schools
v. Sweden, Comm. Report 8.12.87, para. 86, D.R. 61 p. 103).
52. The Commission considers that the refusal of the competent
authorities to issue a licence required under domestic law for the
establishment of a private foreign language school, which would have
provided extra-curriculum tuition in accordance with the applicable
domestic rules, similarly involves a determination of civil rights. The
applicants were refused such a licence on the ground that they were
aliens. They challenged the lawfulness of the relevant administrative
act under Community law rules protecting nationals of member States of
the European Union from discrimination. The Commission considers that
this gave rise to a genuine and serious dispute the outcome of which
directly affected the applicants' civil rights within the meaning of
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
53. The Commission further observes that the parties essentially
agree that the dispute could be submitted before a judicial body, the
Council of State, which had full jurisdiction, insofar as it was
competent to review the lawfulness of the relevant administrative act
under European Community law, and which provided all the guarantees of
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Moreover, the
applicants do not dispute the Government's assertion that the
proceedings before the Council of State were fair and expeditious. It
would, therefore, appear that the applicants had access to a tribunal
satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
54. The Commission, however, recalls that the right of access, that
is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
is only one aspect of the right to a court embodied in Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment
of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36). Although the
Court has not considered it necessary to give a comprehensive
definition of the exact content of this right, it has ruled that the
Contracting States' widely proclaimed profound belief in the rule of
law must be taken into consideration when interpreting the various
guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) according to their context
and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention (Golder
judgment, referred to above, pp. 17 and 18, paras. 34-36). Bearing in
mind the rule of law principle in mind, the Commission must determine
whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides
guarantees against actions of State authorities which could thwart the
protection afforded by the courts.
55. The Commission recalls in this connection that the Convention is
intended to guarantee not rights which are theoretical or illusory but
rights that are practical and effective. This is particularly so as
regards the various rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Art. 6) given
the prominent place they hold in a democratic society (see Eur. Court
H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12 and 13,
para. 24 and Artico judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16,
para. 33). Yet the right to a court would be rendered entirely illusory
and theoretical if State authorities could refuse, without acting in
breach of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, to comply with court
decisions issued against them in disputes involving the determination
of civil rights and obligations. The Court has already considered that
Article 6 (Art. 6) is violated where a State authority has the
statutory power to decide that a tribunal's decision issued against it
in a dispute concerning civil rights should not be followed (Eur. Court
H.R., Van der Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 17,
para. 52). The situation where a State authority simply refuses to
comply with a court decision issued against it is largely comparable
insofar as the consequences of the litigation for the State authority's
opponent are concerned.
56. Turning to the particular circumstances of the applicants, the
Commission recalls that the Council of State in its decisions of 9 and
10 May 1989 vindicated the applicants' position ruling that they could
not be refused a licence to establish a foreign language school on the
ground that they were foreigners and quashed the relevant
administrative acts. Under domestic law the competent State authorities
were required to take all appropriate steps to comply with the
decisions of the Council of State.
57. The applicants submit that the competent authorities continue to
refuse to take such steps. The respondent Government, however, suggest
that the State authorities discharged their obligations by promulgating
the presidential decree No. 221/1994 (see para. 39 supra). The
Commission does not consider it necessary to resolve the issue whether,
by promulgating the above-mentioned decree, the State authorities
complied with the decisions of the Council of State.
58. The Commission notes that the decree was promulgated more than
five years after the decisions of the Council of State which vindicated
the applicants' position. During this period and despite the
applicants' various and numerous protests, the State authorities did
not take any steps to comply with the decisions of the Council of
State. Moreover, notwithstanding the promulgation of the presidential
decree No. 221/1994, the applicants have never received a formal reply
to their applications for a licence to establish a foreign language
schools which they re-submitted on 8 August 1989.
59. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the
applicants did not have the benefit of effective judicial protection.
As a result, their right to an effective determination of their rights
by a court has been violated.
CONCLUSION
60. The Commission concludes, unanimously, by 27 votes to 1, that in
the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art.
6-1) of the Convention.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)
(Or. English)
CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
While I agree that in the present case there has been a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that the applicants did not
have an effective determination of their rights by a court, I am of the
opinion that the reasoning of the Commission does not address the
central problem of the case, which is the responsibility of the
administration to comply with judicial decisions, and, thus, to honour
the principle of separation of powers and respect the rule of law.
It is indeed part and parcel of the concept of separation of
powers and of the principle of the rule of law in a democratic State
that each power - the legislative power, the executive power and the
judicial power - has its own field of competence, within which it is
the only entity with decision-making capacity. In this field no other
power can enter and interfere with decisions on the procedure or the
merits. But the requirements of the concept of separation of powers go
beyond stipulating that each State power has its own sphere of
exclusive activity. A corollary of the principle of separation of
powers is that, wherever there is an osmosis of competence involving
more than one power in the effective implementation of a decision taken
by one of them, the power which "interferes" with the decision must co-
operate in putting it into effect. Otherwise, the power of decision-
making may be devoid of all significance. It is, for instance, an
obligation of the judiciary to apply the decisions of the legislative
power (legislation) when it decides on a case, as it is the obligation
of the executive to assist in the implementation of judicial decisions
by executing them without hindering that implementation.
In the circumstances of the case, the State authorities - the
executive power - have not complied with the rule of separation of
powers and have prevented the judiciary from deciding in its own sphere
of competence; and, hence, the applicants did not see their expectation
of an effective determination of their rights fulfilled.
(Or. French)
DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Much to my regret, I cannot share my colleagues' opinion. Here
are my reasons:
Article 6 of the Convention is violated if a court fails to give
a ruling within a reasonable time. On the facts of this case, the
court, that is, the Council of State, is not the subject of any
criticism.
The authorities are criticised for letting five years go by
without giving a decision on the fresh application lodged by the
applicants.
The question arises whether the authorities' delay can constitute
a violation of Article 6.
The Commission considers in its report that the authorities had
a duty to enforce the Council of State's decision, which they failed
to do. The Commission therefore finds that the length of the
proceedings was excessive.
I cannot subscribe to such an approach.
The Council of State's decisions of 9 and 10 May 1989, to which
the Commission refers in paragraph 24 of its report, did not establish
a subjective right in favour of the applicants, as the latter had
merely filed an application for judicial review (recours en excès de
pouvoir in French terminology). It is in that context that the
authorities' decision to reject the applicants' request for a licence
to open a foreign language school, on the ground that they were not
Greek nationals, was set aside by the Council of State.
It cannot be inferred from those decisions - and I am adamant
about this - that the applicants had a right to open the school. The
decisions, which were given following an application for judicial
review, are confined to setting aside the refusal, on grounds of the
applicants' nationality, to grant a licence. They are therefore merely
declaratory decisions and are not enforceable by the authorities.
The only obligation on the authorities is not to refuse to grant
a licence on grounds of the applicants' nationality. They remain free,
however, to grant or reject a further application by the applicants for
reasons other than their nationality.
Thus, when the applicants lodged a fresh application on 8 August
1989 (see paragraph 26 of the Report), the obligation on the
authorities was not to enforce the Council of State's decisions, but
to reply to a further application.
Does the fact that the authorities allowed five years to go by
without replying constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Convention?
This is the crux of the matter!
My view is that had the authorities' delay prevented the
applicants from applying to the administrative courts, they may have
been able to make out an indirect violation of Article 6 of the
Convention. That was not the case, however. The applicants could, in
this case, after three months' silence on the part of the authorities,
have applied to the Council of State contesting the implicit rejection
of their application.
In the circumstances, as the applicants have apparently had the
time (and patience) to wait five years, rather than bring the case
before the administrative courts, they can complain of inertia on the
part of the Greek authorities, but not of a violation of Article 6 of
the Convention.
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
_______________________________________________________________
7 January 1990 Introduction of the application
14 June 1991 Registration of the application
Examination of admissibility
30 June 1993 Commission's decision to communicate the
case to the respondent Government and to
invite the parties to submit observations
on admissibility and merits
20 October 1993 Commission's decision to grant the
respondent Government an extension
10 December 1993 Government's observations
17 February 1994 Applicant's observations in reply
31 August 1994 Commission's decision to declare the
application admissible
Examination of the merits
27 September 1994 Decision on admissibility transmitted to
the parties
1 November 1994 Government's supplementary observations
requesting the Commission to declare the
application inadmissible under Article 29
of the Convention
10 November 1994 Applicants' supplementary information
17 January 1995 Examination of state of proceedings
26 February 1995 Applicant's comments on the Government's
request for the application to be declared
inadmissible under Article 29 of the
Convention
9 March 1995 Applicant's additional comments
11 April 1995 Commission's decision not to grant the
Government's request to declare the
application inadmissible under Article 29
17 October 1995 Commission's decision that the case should
be examined by the Plenary
23 October 1995 Adoption of Report
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy