CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 avril 1992

.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 OF                         Application No. 17733/91                       by Andreas PAPADOPOULOS                       against Greece           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 April 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    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 2 January 1991 by Andreas PAPADOPOULOS against Greece and registered on 29 January 1991 under file No. 17733/91;         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 applicant is a Greek citizen born in 1946. He is an economist residing in London. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Yannis Chrysospathis, a lawyer practising in Athens.         On 19 July 1984, the applicant was appointed at a post of economic adviser at the Permanent Greek representation in Brussels by a ministerial decision of the Minister of National Economy. He signed to this effect a three year private contract of employment. By ministerial decision of 15 April 1986 the applicant's post in Brussels was converted as from 18 september 1984 into a provisional post and his contract into a private agreement for employment for an indefinite time.         On 17 November 1986, the Minister of National Economy decided to transfer the applicant to the Central Service in Athens. This decision was annulled by judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal (Dioikitiko Efeteio) of Athens on 5 June 1987. The applicant had previously obtained from that Court an order of suspension of the execution of the challenged decision.         On 27 March 1987, the Minister of National Economy and of the Government's Presidency decided to abolish the applicant's post in Brussels. As a result of this decision the applicant was dismissed on 5 May 1987. The applicant appealed against the above decisions. By judgment N° 2403/1989 of 7 July 1989 the Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias) accepted the appeal and annulled both the ministerial decision and the dismissal. The Council of State found that the challenged ministerial decision was not sufficiently motivated.         On 5 July 1990, a further ministerial decision abolished ex tunc, i.e. as from 30 March 1987, the applicant's post. An appeal against this decision was lodged with the Council of State.         The hearing of the case before this court was adjourned three times, the last on 30 January 1992.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of the ministerial decision of 5 July 1990. He submits that having regard to the attitude of the administration which insists on its decisions notwithstanding the judgments annulling them, he is in fact deprived of an effective judicial protection within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. He invokes in this respect Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.     THE LAW         The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of the Convention that due to the attitude of the administration he is deprived of an effective judicial protection.         However, even assuming that the provisions invoked apply in the present case, the Commission finds that, contrary to the applicant's submissions, the administrative courts' judgments annulling the ministerial decisions concerning him have been plainly effective and that it is not established that the administration implemented in any way whatsoever the annulled decisions.         As far as the applicant complains of the ministerial decision of 5 July 1990 and in particular of the effect ex tunc of this decision, the Commission recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention it cannot deal with a case before the exhaustion of the domestic remedies.   It notes that the subject-matter of the application is presently pending before the competent Greek courts. Moreover, the Commission cannot conclude that these proceedings are doomed to fail or that the administration will refuse to abide by the judgments of these courts in case they are in the applicant's favour.         The Commission finds therefore that the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies under Greek law.   Moreover the examination of the case has not disclosed any special circumstances absolving the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal.         It follows that the application must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, by majority,         DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)