Sadik Amet and Others v. Greece (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 36

November 2001

Sadik Amet and Others v. Greece (dec.) - 64756/01

Decision 29.11.2001 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Impossibility for applicants to continue action brought by their father/husband in the Council of State, following his death: inadmissible

The applicants, who are Greek nationals of Muslim denomination, are the heirs of a former member of Parliament of the Muslim faith who died in 1995. In 1990 the latter had instituted proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court for the revocation of a decision of the Minister for National Education and Religious Worship appointing a mufti. He had argued that the appointment was in breach of the legislation providing that the mufti should be elected by citizens of Muslim faith. The applicants, who are the deceased’s heirs, expressed the wish to pursue the legal proceedings brought by their father and husband respectively. In 1998 the case was referred to the chamber dealing with cases concerning civil servants. In July 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the proceedings should be struck out and, accordingly, did not examine the merits of the case. The court found that the application, which was based on an alleged breach of the right to take part in the election of the mufti, was so closely linked to the person of the deceased plaintiff that the right to pursue the proceedings was not transmissible to his heirs. The latter could, as Muslims, have themselves brought such proceedings, but did not have locus standi to pursue the proceedings brought by their father and husband.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (access to a tribunal): presuming this provision to be applicable, it appeared that in concluding that the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court were closely linked to the person of the deceased plaintiff and, accordingly, that the applicants did not have locus standi to pursue them, the Supreme Administrative Court had based its decision on the relevant legislation. Moreover, the applicants had the right, under the domestic law, to bring an action themselves similar to the one they wished to continue: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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