CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 janvier 1995

.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. 24960/94                       by Theodoros PAPOULAKOS                       against Greece        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 11 January 1995, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY,   Acting President            MM.    C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS              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 15 April 1994 by Theodoros PAPOULAKOS against Greece and registered on 22 August 1994 under file No. 24960/94;        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 national, born in 1942 and residing in Athens.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant studied law in Italy and graduated in February 1982. In May 1982 he was admitted as an avocat stagiaire to the Bar of Rome, acquiring thereby the right to plead before the single member first instance pretore courts of the Rome judicial district. The applicant has been so far unsuccessful in his repeated attempts to pass the examinations of admission to the Bar of Rome.         On 18 August 1986 and 11 November 1987 the applicant submitted two applications to the Athens Bar to be admitted as a member. The applicant relied on Article 52 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community, which guarantees the freedom of establishment, arguing that he had the right to practise law in Italy. Having received no reply, the applicant challenged the Bar's failure to respond before the Council of State by lodging two requests for the annulment of the Bar's implicit rejection of his applications on 15 September 1986 and 6 April 1988.        On 12 April 1989 the Council of State requested the Athens Bar to submit to it the applicant's case-file. On 4 May 1989 the Athens Bar replied that no such file existed in its archives. On 19 June 1990 the Council of State renewed its request submitting to the Athens Bar copies of the applicant's applications of 18 August 1986 and 11 November 1987. Two reminders were sent by the Council to the Bar on 18 October 1990 and 23 March 1991.        Having received no reply, the Council of State issued on 31 October 1991 an interim decision (No. 3002/91) ordering the Athens Bar to notify the Council whether the applicant had lodged the applications of 18 August 1986 and 11 November 1987 and, if so, to submit to the Council the complete case-file.        On 9 January 1992 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Athens against the President of the Athens Bar. On 5 February 1992 the Bar of Athens notified the Council of State that it had received the applicant's applications of 18 August 1986 and 11 November 1987, failing, however, to submit the case-file.        On 16 April 1992 the Council of State held that the Bar had violated its legal obligations by failing to reply to the applicant's application of 11 November 1987 (decision No. 1524/92). Given the direct effect of Article 52 of the EEC Treaty, the Council considered that the Bar should have either accepted the applicant's request or rejected it in a reasoned manner.         On 29 July 1992 the applicant lodged a new application with the Athens Bar submitting a copy of the Council of State's decision No. 1524/92. He also lodged an application to the Council of State under a special procedure for the correction of textual mistakes in court decisions. The applicant argued that there was a textual mistake in that the decision of 16 April 1992 did not recognise expressis verbis his right to practise law in Greece.        On 30 July 1992 and on 15 February 1993 the applicant lodged with the Public Prosecutor criminal complaints against the representatives of the Athens Bar   for failure to comply with the decision of the Council of State.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of his right to practise law in Greece under Article 52 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.   2.    The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the failure of the Athens Bar to comply with the decision of the Council of State of 16 April 1992.   3.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the failure of the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the representatives of the Bar further to the criminal complaints the applicant had lodged against them.   4.    The applicant complains that the refusal of the Athens Bar to admit him as a member amounts to inhuman, degrading and discriminatory treatment contrary to Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that he did not have a hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of his right to practice law in Greece under Article 52 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. He invokes in this connection Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides that 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.        It further recalls that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention extends only to disputes over civil rights which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not in itself guarantee any particular content for civil rights in the substantive law of the Contracting States (Boden judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125, p. 39, para. 28). The Commission notes that Community law forms part of domestic law in those Contracting States, such as Greece, which are members of the European Union.        The Commission notes, however, that the applicant is not a full member of an Italian Bar but an avocat stagiaire. This entitles him to appear before certain Italian courts. However, his full admission to the Bar is subject to further assessment after a period of training.        The Commission considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant could not claim on arguable grounds the right to be automatically admitted to full practice at the Athens Bar on the basis of Community law. As a result, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not apply to the dispute arising out of the failure of the Athens Bar to consider his application and this complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant further complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the failure of the Athens Bar to comply with the decision of the Council of State of 16 April 1992.        The Commission considers that the proceedings before the Council of State which led to the decision of 16 April 1992 did not involve the determination of a civil right under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. As a result, this complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the failure of the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the representatives of the Bar further to the criminal complaints the applicant had lodged against them.        The Commission recalls that the right to institute criminal proceedings against public officials is not guaranteed under the Convention.        As a result, this complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.    The applicant complains that the refusal of the Athens Bar to admit him as a member amounts to inhuman, degrading and discriminatory treatment contrary to Articles 3 and 14 (Art. 3, 14) of the Convention.        However, insofar as the matters complained of have been substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.        This part of the application must be, therefore, rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary                         Acting President to the First Chamber                  of the First Chamber     (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (J. LIDDY)