AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 34213/96
by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others
against Greece
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 16 September 1996
by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others against Greece and registered
on 18 December 1996 under file No. 34213/96;
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 applicants, whose names are available at the Commission's
Secretariat, are 160 Greek citizens. They are all employees of the
"I Elpis" municipal hospital in Athens. In the proceedings before the
Commission they are represented by Mr. I. Stamoulis, a lawyer
practising in Athens.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicants, can be summarised as follows:
A. The particular circumstances of the case
By virtue of section 6 para. 2 of Law 754/1978, published in the
Government's Gazette (Efimerida Kiverniseos) on 15 February 1978, a
special allowance was granted to all employees of the State and legal
persons governed by public law (Nomika Prosopa Dimosiu Dikeu).
On 7 October 1982 the employees of the Athens Municipal Hospital
"I Elpis" claimed this allowance for the period between 1 January 1978
and 30 June 1981. On 22 November 1982 the governing body of the
hospital decided to satisfy their claim. In the relevant decision the
governing body expressly stated that, if the employees' claim had not
been granted, they would have instituted court proceedings relying on
the provisions of the Constitution prescribing equal treatment of all
State employees and they would have won. As a result, the hospital
would have had to bear the additional expenditure of the court costs
and expenses.
However, on an unspecified date, the Ministry of the Interior
ordered the hospital not to pay the allowance.
The applicants instituted proceedings before the First Instance
Multi-Member Civil Court (Polimeles Protodikio) of Athens. One group
lodged an action on 4 March 1983 and a second group lodged another
action on 4 May 1983. Both actions were rejected on 15 June 1987. The
applicants' appeals were rejected by the Court of Appeal (Efetio) of
Athens on 29 April 1989 and their appeals in cassation were rejected
by the Court of Cassation (Arios Pagos) on 19 March 1996.
The Court of Cassation noted that, according to section 12
para. 2 of Law 754/1978, the provisions of this law would apply to
local authorities' employees only to the extent that it would be so
decided by the competent ministers. However, section 6 para. 2 was not
among the provisions of Law 754/1978 which the Ministers of the
Interior and Finance decided should apply to local authorities'
employees (decision No. 25639/30.3.1978). This was not against the
constitutional provisions on equal treatment of State employees,
because the position of the employees of local authorities was
different from that of other employees of the State. Moreover, the
decision of 22 November 1982 of the governing body of the hospital did
not give rise to any contractual rights for the plaintiffs, since it
had been expressly linked to the principle of equal treatment under the
Constitution which, however, could not be relied on by the plaintiffs
to claim the allowance.
B. Relevant domestic practice
By decision No. 6/1992 the Court of Cassation decided that it
would be against the constitutional provisions on equal treatment of
State employees not to grant the allowance of section 6 para. 2 of
Law 754/1978 to the employees of non-municipal State hospitals.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an
allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees
of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14
of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an
allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees
of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) taken on its own or in conjunction with
Article 14 (P1-1+14) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, a
claim can constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provided that it is sufficiently established (see
No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146; No. 7775/77, Dec. 5.10.78,
D.R. 15, p. 143; see also Eur. Court HR, Stran Greek Refineries and
Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A
no. 301, p. 84, para. 89). However, the applicants' claim was refused
by all the courts which examined it. It cannot, therefore, constitute
a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
As a result, the applicants' complaint under that provision is
incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.
The Commission further recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention has no independent existence in the sense that it relates
only to rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The
applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
It follows that the applicants cannot complain under Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention of discrimination in the enjoyment of a
right guaranteed by the Convention. As a result, this complaint as well
is incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.
The Commission, therefore, considers that the application must
be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention in
accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) thereof.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy