AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 34372/97
by Housein, Bedrie, Oznour, Fatme,
Aisel and Ilkai ZEIBEK
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 25 October 1996 by
Housein, Bedrie, Oznour, Fatme, Aisel and Ilkai ZEIBEK against Greece and
registered on 8 January 1997 under file No. 34372/97;
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 first applicant was born in 1951 in Greece. He is married to the
second applicant who was born in 1961 in Greece. The remaining four
applicants are their children born in 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1982 in
Greece. They are of Turkish ethnic origin. They reside in Ehinos, Xanthi,
Greece and are all stateless and unemployed. In the proceedings before
the Commissionrt. they are represented by Mr. O. Haciibram, a lawyer
practising in Xanthi, and Mr. T. Akillioglu, a lawyer practising in
Ankara.
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicants, can be summarised as follows:
a. Particular circumstances of the case
In January 1984 the applicants, who were at the time Greek
citizens, travelled from Greece to Istanbul to visit the father of the
second applicant. While in Istanbul the first applicant lost his
passport, which had been issued on 29 March 1983 by the Prefecture of
Xanthi, and applied to the Greek Consulate for a travel document so that
he could return to Greece. After a number of months, the Greek consular
authorities announced to him that, by decision of the Minister of the
Interior, he had lost his Greek nationality. He claims that no reasons
were given to him. Neither was the decision served on him.
On 30 May 1985 the remaining applicants, who had Greek passports,
returned to Greece. One month later they were joined by the first
applicant who crossed the border illegally. They were then informed that
the Minister of the Interior, by the above-mentioned decision, had
revoked the Greek nationality of all applicants and not the first
applicant only. The applicants tried repeatedly to have the decision
repealed, but were unsuccessful.
On 2 June 1995 the first applicant was found guilty of driving a
vehicle without a driving licence by the single-member first instance
criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Xanthi, which did not accept
as an excuse the fact that the applicant could not apply for such a
licence because of the particularity of his citizenship situation.
On 1 September 1995 the applicants lodged an application for
judicial review (etisi akiroseos) with the Council of State (Simvulio
Epikratias) against the decision of the Minister of Interior, by which
they were deprived of their Greek nationality, claiming that they had
never been officially served with a copy thereof. They submitted that the
facts underlying the decision had not been correctly established, that
the decision did not contain adequate reasons and that they had not been
heard.
On 11 September 1996 the Council of State rejected their
application. The Council noted that the impugned decision had been issued
on 22 November 1984. The decision revoked the applicants' nationality
under Article 19 of the Code of Citizenship, which provided that those
of non-Greek stock (allogenis) may lose their citizenship if they leave
Greece with no intention to return, and was based on a report of the
police of Xanthi to the effect that the applicants had sold all their
property on 30 December 1983 and had left Greece in January 1984. On 10
November 1990 the applicants had asked for their Greek citizenship to be
restored. In the relevant application they had referred extensively to
the impugned decision and its reasons. It transpired, therefore, that the
applicants had on that date been aware of the decision and its reasons.
However, they did not appeal to the Council of State before 1 September
1995. As a result, their appeal had to be rejected as out of time under
Article 46 para. 1 of presidential decree No. 18/1989.
The applicants obtained a copy of the decision of the Council of
State on 13 December 1996.
b. Relevant domestic law
Article 46 para. 1 of presidential decree No. 18/1989 provides the
following in respect of time-limits for applications for judicial review
to the Council of State:
"Except as otherwise provided, an application for judicial review
must be made within sixty days of the day following the date of
notification of the impugned decision or the date of publication
..., or, otherwise of the day following the day on which the
applicant acquired knowledge of the decision."
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain that they were deprived of theirnationality
by administrative decision without a hearing in breach of Article 6 of
the Convention.
2. They also complain that, since they lost their nationality, they
cannot work, travel, drive a car, vote, get married or be affiliated to
a social security scheme. This constitutes a violation of a number of
their rights under the Convention, notably the right to marry under
Article 12 of the Convention and the right to return to one's own country
under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4.
3. Finally, they complain under Article 14 of the Convention that they
lost their nationality under a provision of the Code of Citizenship which
concerns only Greek citizens who are not considered to be of Greek stock.
They claim that this provision is systematically used by the Greek
authorities to reduce the number of non-ethnic Greeks among Greek
nationals.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that they were deprived of their Greek
citizenship under a provision of the Code of Citizenship which concerns
only Greek citizens who are not considered to be of Greek stock and are,
as a result, subjected to considerable hardship .
The Commission recalls that the right to a nationality is not one
of the rights and freedoms secured by the Convention (Beljoudi v. France,
Comm. Report 6.9.90, para. 79, Series A no. 234, p. 46). However,
differential treatment of a group of persons on the basis of race might
be capable of constituting degrading treatment prohibited under (Art. 3)
of the Convention (East African Asians v. United Kingdom, Comm. Report
14.12.73, para. 207, D.R. 78, p. 5)
However, the Commission does not consider it necessary to examine
whether the applicants' complaints can give rise to an issue under (Art.
3) of the Convention. The Commission recalls that under
(Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with the matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law. It also recalls that, according
to its case-law, domestic remedies are not considered to have been
exhausted where an appeal is not admitted because of a procedural mistake
by the applicant (No. 10636/83, Dec. 1.7.85, D.R. 43, p. 171).
The Commission notes that on 1 September 1995 the applicants
appealed against the decision depriving them of their Greek citizenship
to the Council of State invoking a number of grounds under domestic law
which, if successful, would have resulted in the quashing of the relevant
decision. However, on 11 September 1996 the Council of State rejected
their appeal as out of time, after having satisfied itself that the
applicants were aware of the impugned decision and its reasons at the
latest on 10 November 1990, when they lodged an application for their
Greek citizenship to be restored. It follows that the reason for the
rejection of the appeal was a procedural mistake committed by the
applicants.
As a result, the Commission considers that the applicants have not
complied with the requirements of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention
concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. This part of the application
must be, therefore, rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. The applicants complain that they were deprived of their nationality
by administrative decision without a hearing in breach of Article 6 (Art.
6) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention
guarantees the right to a fair hearing in the determination of one's
civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against
him. However, according to the Commission's case-law, proceedings
concerning a person's nationality do not determine either civil rights
and obligations or a criminal charge (No. 13325/87, Dec. 15.12.88, D.R.
59, p. 256; No. 17309/90, Dec. 30.8.94, unpublished).
It follows that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does
not apply. This part of the application must be, therefore, rejected
under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention as incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy