AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 33669/96
by Július PERÉNYI
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present:
MM J.-C. GEUS, President
M.A. NOWICKI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
Mrs G.H. THUNE
MM F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 10 July 1996 by
Július PERÉNYI against the Slovak Republic and registered on 5 November
1996 under file No. 33669/96;
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 applicant is a Slovak national born in 1955 and residing in
Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
On 2 April 1991 the applicant was dismissed from the Corps of the
National Security (Zbor národnej bezpecnosti) for redundancy. On
4 November 1991 the Minister of the Interior of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic upheld this decision.
On 31 July 1992 the Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd) of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic quashed the aforesaid decision of the Minister
of the Interior. It considered that the applicant's redundancy had not
been established with sufficient certainty.
On 21 September 1992 the Minister of the Interior of the Czech
and Slovak Federal Republic quashed the decision on the applicant's
dismissal.
On 6 October 1992 the applicant was dismissed from the Federal
Police Corps (Federálny policajny zbor) on the ground that he had
become redundant. On 11 December 1992 the Director of the Surveillance
Service of the Federal Police Corps informed the applicant, with
reference to the aforesaid decision of 6 October 1992, that his service
with the police would be terminated as from 31 December 1992.
The applicant considered that his dismissal of 6 October 1992 was
unlawful and appealed.
On 29 June 1994 the Minister of the Interior of the Slovak
Republic dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision stated that
after the applicant had become redundant, he had been offered two posts
in Bratislava and a post in Prague but had refused to accept them. The
Minister of the Interior further held that the applicant had been
dismissed in accordance with the law in force.
On 9 December 1994 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic found
that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful and quashed the
decision of the Minister of the Interior of 29 June 1994.
On 27 March 1995 the Minister of the Interior quashed the
decision on the applicant's dismissal of 6 October 1992. The
Minister's decision further stated that the applicant had ceased to be
a member of the Federal Police Corps as from 31 December 1992.
Reference was made to Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992 according to
which the service of the policemen belonging to the armed security
forces of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was terminated upon the
expiry of 31 December 1992.
The applicant considered that he continued being a member of the
police and claimed that the Minister's decision of 27 March 1995 should
be quashed.
On 28 September 1995 the Supreme Court discontinued the
proceedings. It held that the applicant's service in the police had
been terminated ex lege pursuant to Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992.
The Supreme Court further found that by informing the applicant about
this fact the Minister of the Interior had not taken any separate
decision on this issue that would be reviewable by administrative
courts.
On 16 January 1996 the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd)
rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint. It held that the
applicant's service had been terminated ex lege pursuant to
Section 2 (c) of Law No. 624/1992 and considered that there existed no
individual decision in this regard that the applicant could challenge
by means of a constitutional complaint.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that his service in the police was
terminated unlawfully and that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional
Court decided on his claim in this respect erroneously. He alleges a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
The applicant also complains that he did not have an effective
remedy before Slovak authorities as regards the termination of his
service in the police. He alleges a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about his dismissal from the police and
about the subsequent proceedings concerning his claim that he was
dismissed unlawfully. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as
follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
...
To the extent that the applicant complains about his dismissal
from the police, the Commission recalls that the right of access to the
civil service is not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention (see Eur.
Court HR, Kosiek v. Germany judgment of 28 August 1986, Series A
no. 105, p. 20, para. 35).
To the extent that the applicant alleges a violation of Article
6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the proceedings concerning
his dismissal, the Commission recalls that disputes relating to the
recruitment, careers and termination of service of civil servants are,
as a general rule, outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention (see, as one of the most recent references, Eur.
Court HR, Argento v. Italy judgment of 2 September 1997, Reports 1997-V
no. 48, paras. 18 and 19).
The Commission notes that in the present case the applicant
complains exclusively of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of
his dismissal from the police. Thus the dispute in question clearly
related to the termination of his service and did not concern a "civil"
right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention. Accordingly, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is not
applicable to the present case.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that he had no effective remedy
as regards his dismissal from the police. He alleges a violation of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which provides as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The Commission recalls that the right of recourse guaranteed in
Article 13 (Art. 13) can only relate to a right protected by the
Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Pierre-Bloch v.
France judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI no. 53, para. 64).
In view of its above finding that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention is not applicable to the present case, the Commission
considers that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention is not
applicable, either.
It follows that this part of the application is also incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy