CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 mai 1987

.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 }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 12597/86 by K.W. HAUGHTON against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 May 1987, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         G. SPERDUTI                         F. ERMACORA                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         G. BATLINER                         H. VANDENBERGHE                    Mrs   G.H. THUNE                    Sir   Basil HALL                    Mr.   F. MARTINEZ                      Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 August 1986 by K.W. Haughton against the United Kingdom and registered on 10 December 1986 under file No. 12597/86;           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 applicant is a British citizen born in 1959 and resident in Gillingham, Kent.   She is represented by Robin Murray, a solicitor. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant commenced employment with Olau Lines (United Kingdom) Ltd on 24 June 1983 and worked as a cashier on a ferry boat owned by the parent company of her employers, which was a German company.           On or about 4 November 1983, the applicant alleges that she was sexually harassed by a Purser, who asked her personal questions concerning sexual relationships and who, when the applicant refused to answer, threw some cigarette-lighters at her.   The Purser then suggested that the applicant was having a sexual relationship with a particular member of the crew, which was untrue and threatened to arrange for the applicant to lose her job.           The applicant complained of this harassment to her employers in the United Kingdom.   On 8 November 1983, she was informed by the Personnel Officer that her complaint would not help her career.   On or about 9 November 1983 she was informed that the Pursers on both the ship where she worked and its sister ship refused to allow her on board as result of her complaint and that she could therefore no longer work for the company.           The applicant commenced proceedings before an industrial tribunal alleging that she had suffered unlawful sexual discrimination by being sexually harassed and that she had been unlawfully victimised in being dismissed after having made a complaint.           Before the industrial tribunal, her employers argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction pursuant to the wording of S. 6 (2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.   Section 6 (2) provides "It is unlawful for a person, in the case of a woman employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against her..." The industrial tribunal accepted this argument and held that they had no jurisdiction in the case.   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal.           The Court of Appeal found that the applicant worked on a German registered ship that 58.8% of her working hours were spent outside the United Kingdom territorial waters and that accordingly she was employed wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom.   The court rejected the applicant's argument that a ship cannot be regarded as an establishment or that the establishment with which the applicant had her closest connection was her employers' offices in the United Kingdom.   Her application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 7 March 1986.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of a violation of her private life in that she has suffered sexual harassment and of discrimination.   She also complains that she is denied any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of her complaints.           The applicant invokes Articles 8 para. 1, 13 and 14.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that she has suffered an interference with her private life and discrimination contrary to Articles 8 and 14 (Art. 8, 14) of the Convention as a result of being sexually harassed by a fellow employee and of being dismissed by her employers following her complaint against the employee.           However, under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals, where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the Commission.   The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications directed against private individuals. In this respect the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. the decisions on the admissibility of applications Nos. 172/56, Dec. 20.12.57, Yearbook 1 pp. 211, 215 and 3925/69, Dec. 2.1.70, Collection of Decisions 32 pp. 56, 58).           The Commission also finds that the applicant's complaints as submitted by her do not disclose any elements which indicate that the United Kingdom Government was subject to a duty imposed by Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention in respect of the alleged matters.           It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains that she has been denied any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of her complaints contrary to Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           The Commission observes that this provision is only applicable when an applicant has an arguable claim that there has been a breach of other rights and freedoms contained in the Convention (see e.g. Boyle, X and Y v.   United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9658 and 9659/82, Comm.   Report 7.5.86).   However, in the present case, the Commission has already found that the applicant's complaints under Article 8 and 14 (Art. 8, 14) of the Convention fall outside the scope of the Convention and it has not found any appearance of a violation of any of the other provisions of the Convention.   There is therefore no basis in the present case for the application of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)