DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33738/96
by Atnan RAIF OGLU
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 16 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, Judges,
withMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 11 April 1996 by Atnan RAIF OGLU against Greece and registered on 11 December 1996 under file no. 33738/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 8 October 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 3 December 1997;
Having regard to the Commission decision of 14 April 1998 to request supplementary observations;
Having regard to the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent Government on 11 May 1998 and by the applicant on 13 May 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Greek national, born in 1945 and living in Xanthi.
He is represented before the Court by Mr O. Haciibram, a lawyer practising in Xanthi, and Mr T Akillioglu, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
At the relevant time the applicant worked as a teacher in the minority primary school of Xanthi in Thrace under a private law contract.
On 26 February 1987 the Regional Primary Education Board of the Prefecture of Xanthi imposed on the applicant a disciplinary penalty of one year's suspension, because "in his capacity as a member of the committee of the Union of Muslim Teachers of Western Thrace, he printed and distributed a document .... in which he used the term 'Turkish teachers' .... and old Turkish names of villages .... in breach of international agreements, the laws of the Greek State and a recent .... judgment of the Court of Appeal of Thrace". An appeal lodged by the applicant before the Council of State was rejected on 5 March 1992 as inadmissible. The relevant judgment was served on the applicant on 3 February 1993.
The applicant was suspended from his duties between 4 February 1993 and 3 February 1994. On 2 February 1994 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi informed the applicant that he could not resume his duties in the primary school where he used to work because there were no posts available. The Office indicated that the applicant could, nevertheless, reapply should a vacancy arise. The applicant lodged an application for judicial review of this decision before the Administrative Court of Appeal (Diikitiko Efetio) of Komotini, which was competent to hear the case at first instance because of the nature of the dispute.
On 20 March 1996 the Court of Appeal considered that the decision of 2 February 1994 of the Minority Schools Office in essence made the applicant redundant. However, such a decision could only be taken by the Prefect (Nomarhis) and serious reasons had to be invoked. For this reason, the Court quashed the decision in question.
On 6 June 1996 the applicant served the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the Minister of Education, the Prefect of Xanthi, the Supervisor of the Minority Schools and the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi and announced that he would present himself at the school where he used to work to resume his duties. On 6 June 1996 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi certified that the applicant presented himself at the school where he used to work, but that the office "did not have any orders to assign him any duties". A similar certificate was issued on 21 June 1996.
On 27 August 1996 the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi ordered the school where the applicant used to work "not to accept" the applicant at the beginning of the new school year, pending further instructions.
On 24 September 1996 the Prefect of Xanthi decided to dismiss the applicant as from 2 February 1994 on the ground that "he had engaged in activities which could harm the interests of the State".
On 10 October 1996 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for breach of duty against the Supervisor of the Minority Schools, the civil servants of the Minority Schools Office of the Prefecture of Xanthi and every other person responsible for his not being assigned any duties.
On 10 December 1996 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the decision of 24 September 1996 of the Prefect of Xanthi before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Komotini.
On 31 July 1997 the Central Minority Schools Office of the Ministry of Education invited the applicant to inform them whether he was prepared to work in the minority primary schools of Kirnos or Kremasti in the Prefecture of Xanthi where vacant posts existed. The office referred to a proposal made orally to the applicant in the autumn of 1994 to work in Kirnos, which he had rejected.
On 11 August 1997 the applicant replied that he remained the holder of a post in the minority primary school of Xanthi. Accepting employment in one of the schools mentioned in the Central Minority Schools Office's letter of 31 July 1997 would not solve a number of important issues, namely the payment of the salary owed to him for the time he had remained unemployed, his travel expenses - given that the two schools were at least 25 kilometres away from Xanthi - and his membership of a social security scheme. The applicant indicated that, if these problems were solved, he would be prepared to accept the Central Minority Schools Office's proposal.
On 24 November 1997 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Komotini quashed the decision of 24 September 1996 of the Prefect of Xanthi on the ground that the reasons for dismissing the applicant were inadequate.
On 17 February 1998 the Prefect of Xanthi rehired the applicant in the minority primary school of Xanthi. On 23 February 1998 the applicant resumed his duties.
The applicant claims that he never received any salary for the period during which he remained illegally unemployed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the failure of the authorities to comply with the judgments issued by the domestic courts in his favour constitutes a breach of Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 11 April 1996 and registered on 11 December 1996.
On 20 May 1997, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 8 October 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 3 December 1997.
On 14 April 1998, the Commission decided to request the parties to submit supplementary observations.
The Government’s supplementary observations were submitted on 11 May 1998 and the applicant’s on 13 May 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains that the failure of the authorities to comply with the judgments issued in his favour constitutes a breach of Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal ... ."
Article 14 of the Convention provides as follows:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
The respondent Government submit that the authorities complied with the judgments in question by rehiring the applicant. Moreover, the Government submit that the applicant has not substantiated his complaint that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
The applicant considers that he is entitled to the salary he lost between 4 February 1994 and 22 February 1998. He argues in this connection that his appeals should have been given suspensive effect. He also submits that his dismissal must be viewed in the context of the entire history of his case which reveals that he was subjected to persecution because of his religious beliefs and ethnic origin.
In the light of the parties' observations, the Court considers that this part of the application raises serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. This part of the application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
2.The applicant also complains of a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
The Government submit that this provision has not been violated since the applicant has not been denied the right to be educated and that his dismissal did not result in the disruption of teaching in the minority school where he used to work.
The applicant submits that the parents of the pupils of the school where he used to work protested about his dismissal and asked for his return.
The Court considers that the applicant, who is a teacher, cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of the rights of the parents under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention and that this part of the application must be rejected as inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 thereof.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaint concerning the right to effective judicial protection and freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of that right;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy