Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19
June 2000
Frydlender v. France [GC] - 30979/96
Judgment 27.6.2000 [GC]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Dispute over employment by the State: Article 6 applicable
(Extract from the press release)
Facts: The applicant was recruited in July 1972 as an agent contractuel (under an individual contract) by the Economic Development Department of the Ministry for Economic Affairs. He worked for the Ministry in Rome, Athens and, at the time when his contract was terminated, in New York. On 27 December 1985 the Minister for Economic Affairs informed Mr Frydlender by a letter dated 10 December 1985 that, owing to his professional incompetence, his contract would not be renewed when it expired on 13 April 1986. By a letter of 9 January 1986, served on the applicant on 21 January 1986, the Minister informed him of his final decision not to renew the contract.
The applicant lodged three applications for judicial review of this decision with the Paris Administrative Court, complaining that it was ultra vires. In a judgment of 6 January 1989, the Administrative Court, having joined all three applications, dismissed them. On 24 October 1989 the applicant gave notice of an appeal to the Conseil d’Etat on points of law. He lodged a statement of the grounds of appeal on 23 February 1990. In a judgment of 10 May 1995, which was served on the applicant on 26 October 1995, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the appeal, holding that it had been lawful for the Minister to dismiss the applicant on the grounds of professional incompetence.
The applicant complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Law: Applicability of Article 6 - After examining whether, on account of the nature of his duties and the level of his responsibilities, the applicant might in practice have participated in activities designed to safeguard the general interests of the State, the Court noted that the documents in the file showed that the applicant, a graduate of the National Agronomic Institute in Paris, had been posted to the New York economic development office as head of an autonomous section, to handle more specifically the promotion of French wines, beers and spirits.
In view of the nature of the duties performed in the present case by the applicant and the relatively low level of his responsibilities, the Court considered that he was not carrying out any task which could be said to entail, either directly or indirectly, duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State.
The Court further observed that the Pellegrin judgment of 8 December 1999 had been intended to restrict cases in which public servants could be denied the practical and effective protection afforded to them, as to any other person, by the Convention, and in particular by Article 6. The Court had to adopt a restrictive interpretation, in accordance with the object and purpose of the Convention, of the exceptions to the safeguards afforded by Article 6 § 1. But such a restrictive interpretation would be too seriously weakened if, as the Government wished in the present case, the Court were to find, by analogy or by extension, that the activities of the staff of the economic development offices as a whole, whatever the nature of their duties and their level of responsibility, entailed the exercise of powers conferred by public law.
In the light of the above considerations, the Court considered that Article 6 of the Convention was applicable in the present case to the dispute over a civil right between Mr Frydlender and the French State.
Compliance with Article 6 - The Court noted that the length of the proceedings complained of, which had begun on 28 February 1986 with the first application to the Paris Administrative Court and ended on 26 October 1995 when the Conseil d’Etat’s judgment was served on the applicant, had been nearly nine years and eight months.
The Court noted, like the Commission, that neither the complexity of the case nor the applicant’s conduct explained the length of the proceedings. It pointed out that the Conseil d’Etat had given judgment nearly six years after the case was referred to it and that the Government had not supplied any explanation of this delay, which seemed manifestly excessive.
In the light of the criteria laid down in its case-law and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings complained of had been excessive and had failed to satisfy the reasonable-time requirement. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimous).
Article 41 - The applicant claimed the sum of 240,000 French francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage. He submitted that his dismissal on the ground of inadequate performance and the length of the proceedings he had brought to challenge it had caused him substantial non-pecuniary damage. Because he was a specialist in the field of international trade in agri-foodstuffs products and the foreign regulations governing it, and on account of his career up to that point and his age, he had been unable to find a job for nearly six years, since the fact that the proceedings were still pending had barred him in practice from applying to public bodies or establishments, which were the only employers likely to give him a job. The length of the proceedings had also impinged on his family life, both financially and in other ways. The Government did not comment on the applicant’s claim.
The Court considered that in the present case the prolongation of the proceedings beyond a reasonable time had undoubtedly caused the applicant considerable difficulties and a lengthy period of uncertainty which justified the award of compensation. Having regard to the judicial authorities’ obligation to determine employment disputes with special diligence and making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41, the Court awarded the applicant the sum of FRF 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The applicant claimed the sum of FRF 50,000 net of tax in respect of the costs he had incurred for his representation before the Convention institutions and produced a copy of the relevant bill of costs. The Government did not comment on this claim. Having regard to the work done by the applicant’s lawyer, the Court considered that this amount was reasonable and awarded it in full.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy