CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 mai 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 May 1986, the following members being present:                   MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President                    J.A. FROWEIN                    E. BUSUTTIL                    G. JÖRUNDSSON                    G. TENEKIDES                    S. TRECHSEL                    B. KIERNAN                    A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                    A. WEITZEL                    J.C. SOYER                    H.G. SCHERMERS                    H. DANELIUS                    G. BATLINER                    H. VANDENBERGHE                Mrs G.H. THUNE                Sir Basil HALL                  Mr   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1984 by H.P. against the Netherlands and registered on 19 July 1984 under file No. 11056/84;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts as they have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.   The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1945 and at present residing at E., the Federal Republic of Germany.   The applicant joined the Netherlands office of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk on 1 July 1980 as an examiner at a certain grade.   He was at that time residing in the Federal Republic of Germany.   On 12 October 1981, the applicant appealed to the President of the EPO against his grading but this was rejected on 19 January 1982.   The applicant appealed against this decision to the Appeals Committee, but on 6 December 1982 the Committee recommended that his appeal be rejected.   By a letter of 29 December 1982 the President informed the applicant that he endorsed that recommendation.   On 13 February 1983, the applicant appealed against this decision to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).   This appeal was rejected on 20 December 1983.   On 30 August 1982, the applicant had also tried to obtain damages from the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO because of travel expenses and other costs incurred as a result of his appointment as an examiner in the Netherlands.   However, by judgment of 5 June 1984 the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's complaint.   On 9 August 1984 the applicant requested a review of this decision but on 18 March 1985 his request was rejected.   Apparently, in the absence of a final decision of the President of the EPO both decisions did not yet come into force.   On 26 December 1985, the applicant requested the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO to revise its decision of 20 December 1983.   No decision appears to have been given on this request.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains to have become the victim of violations of Article 6 of the Convention (Art. 6) by the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany.   He alleges, inter alia, that he did not have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal concerning his complaints about certain decisions by the EPO relating to his employment with that organisation.   He also complains about a violation of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention ((Art. 6, art. 14) with regard to the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO since he claims that this Tribunal discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained that he did not have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal concerning his complaints about certain decisions by the EPO.   He has invoked Article 6 of the Convention (Art. 6) which provides, inter alia:   "1.    In the determination of his civil rights and   obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a fair and   public hearing within a reasonable time by an   independent and impartial tribunal established by   law.. "   The Commission notes that the applicant's complaints against the EPO concerned his appointment at a certain grade and the reimbursement of certain costs, incurred when taking up his appointment in the Netherlands.   These complaints must thus be considered as relating to the modalities of the applicant's employment.   The Commission recalls its case-law according to which litigation concerning access to, or dismissal from, civil service falls outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 6-1) (cf e.g. Dec. 7274/76, 8.3.76, DR 5 p. 157).   Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that litigation concerning the modalities of employment as a civil servant, on either the national or international level, also falls outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 6-1).   It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).   2.       The applicant has further complained that he was discriminated against on the basis of his national origin in the proceedings before the ILO Administrative Tribunal, and he has invoked Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (Art. 6, art. 14)). Article 14 of the Convention provides (Art. 14):   "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. "   However, the Commission recalls that this provision only applies to claims which fall within the scope of one of the substantive provisions of the Convention.   As the Commission found above that the applicant's complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 6-1) were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, it follows that the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with that provision (Art. 6-1, art. 14) must also be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission   (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)