CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 23 octobre 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 }                      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 18357/91                           D. and A.A. H.                               against                               Greece                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 23 October 1995)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 13-17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 18-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 18-42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4        B.    Relevant domestic law and practice           (paras. 43-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 45-61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        A.    Complaint declared admissible           (para. 45). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        B.    Point at issue           (para. 46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8        C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention           (paras. 47-59). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8             CONCLUSION           (para. 60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10   CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS. . . . . . . . . . . 11   DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ . . . . . . . . . . . 12   APPENDIX I:     HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 14   APPENDIX II:    DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE                ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . 15     I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicants are United Kingdom   citizens, born in 1937 and 1939 respectively, and resident in Rhodes, Greece.   3.    The application is directed against Greece.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent Mr. L. Papidas, President of the Legal Advisory Council of State, and Mr. P. Kamarineas, Member of the Legal Advisory Council of State.   4.    The case concerns the failure of State authorities to comply with an administrative court decision.   The applicants invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 7 January 1990 and registered on 14 June 1991.   6.    On 30 June 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 10 December 1993 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicants replied on 17 February 1994.   8.    On 31 August 1994 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application admissible.   9.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 27 September 1994 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. On 1 November 1994 the Government submitted supplementary observations requesting the Commission to declare the application inadmissible under Article 29 of the Convention in the light of the presidential decree No. 211/1994 which had been promulgated shortly before the Commission's decision on admissibility. On 10 November 1994 the applicants submitted supplementary information. On 26 February and 9 March 1995 the applicants submitted comments on the Government's request for the application to be declared inadmissible under Article 29 of the Convention, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   10.   On 11 April 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided not to grant the Government's request to declare the application inadmissible under Article 29 of the Convention.   11.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   12.   On 17 October 1995, the Commission decided that the case should be examined by the Plenary.   C.    The present Report   13.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                C.L. ROZAKIS                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                G.B. REFFI                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL   14.   The text of this Report was adopted on 23 October 1995 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   16.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   17.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   18.   On 5 June 1984 the second applicant applied to the Direction of Secondary Education of the Prefecture of Rhodes for a licence to establish a foreign language private school (frontistirio). On 5 June 1984 she was informed   that, according to the legislation in force, foreign nationals could not be granted a licence to establish such a school.   19.   By judgment No. 147/86 of 15 March 1988 (European Commission v. The Hellenic Republic) the   European Court of Justice declared that "by prohibiting nationals of other member States from setting up 'frontistiria' ... the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty."   20.   On 1 April 1988 the second applicant lodged a further application to the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes for a licence to establish a foreign language school. A separate application was lodged on the same day by the first applicant. On 12 April 1988 both applications were rejected on the ground that the licences requested could not be granted to foreign nationals.   21.   On 8 June 1988 the applicants filed a recourse for annulment (aitisi akyroseos) before the Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias).   22.   On 15 September 1988 the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes informed the applicants that the question of granting licences for foreign language schools to foreign nationals remained pending.   23.   On 23 November 1988 the applicants wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to ensure that all necessary steps were taken to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 15 March 1988.   24.   The Council of State held a hearing in the applicants' case on 11 April 1989.   25.   On 9 May 1989 the Council of State delivered its judgment No. 1337/1989 on the recourse for annulment of the first applicant. On 10 May 1989 it delivered judgment No. 1361/1989 on the second applicant's recourse. The Council of State found that, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, nationals of member States of the European Community could not be prevented from establishing foreign language schools in Greece since 1 January 1981 on the basis that they were "foreigners". It annulled the decisions of the Ministry of National Education.   26.   On 3 July 1989 a third party appeal (tritanakopi) was lodged before the Council of State by two associations of owners of foreign language schools and three owners of foreign language schools in Rhodes against the applicants and the decisions Nos. 1337/1989 and 1361/1989 of the Council of State.   27.   On 8 August 1989 the applicants lodged new applications requesting the Direction of Secondary Education of Rhodes to enforce the decisions of the Council of State and grant them the licence to establish a foreign language school.   28.   On 27 February 1990 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes asking him to grant the above- mentioned licences.   29.   On 28 March 1990 the applicants lodged a criminal action against the Director and all other competent officials under Article 259 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the punishment of State employees who intentionally do not fulfil their duties as civil servants with the purpose of providing illegal profit to themselves or other persons or harming the state or other persons.   30.   On 20 April 1990 the applicants brought their complaints to the attention of the Minister of Education.   31.   On 14 November 1990 the applicants sued the administration before the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes (Polimeles Protodikeio Rhodou). The second applicant asked for 41,109,200 drachmas for actual damages and loss of earnings she had incurred between 1984 and 1990 as a result of the refusal of the administration to comply with the decision of the Council of State. The first applicant asked for 30,025,200 drachmas for actual damages and loss of earnings he had incurred between 1988 and 1990 for the same reason. Each of them asked for 50,000,000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage.   32.   On 14 January 1991 the applicants addressed themselves again to the Minister of Education.   33.   On 25 April 1991 the Council of State by decisions Nos. 2185/91 and 2186/91 rejected the third party appeal lodged by the owners of foreign language schools and their associations on 3 July 1989.   34.   On 29 July 1991 the applicants addressed themselves once more to the Minister of Education. On 25 October 1991 they sent a letter to the Minister in charge of the Presidency of the Government (Ipourgos Proedrias).   35.   On 20 January 1992 the First Instance Civil Court of Rhodes by decision No. 32/92 declared itself incompetent to examine the applicants' action for damages of 14 November 1990, which had to be submitted to an administrative court.   36.   On 3 July 1992 the applicants introduced their action for compensation before the administrative courts.   37.   On 14 January 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes had written to the Ministry of Education inquiring whether the applicants should be granted the licence, in the light of the decision No. 2185/91 of the Council of State.   38.   On 3 May 1993 the applicants were informed that the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes had addressed a further letter to the Ministry of Education reminding the Ministry that the applicants' request for a licence remained pending, despite the fact that two years had already passed since the decision of the Council of State. The letter referred to three previous letters addressed to the Ministry which remained unanswered.   39.   On 22 October 1993 the criminal action lodged by the applicants on 28 March 1990 was rejected by the First Instance Criminal Court of Rhodes (Plimeleiodikeio Rhodou). The court considered that, although the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes had acted unlawfully in refusing the applicants' requests, the mens rea element of the offence provided for under Article 259 of the Criminal Code was not present.   40.   On 22 August 1994 the presidential decree No. 211/1994 was promulgated giving Community nationals the right to establish frontistiria in Greece. Community nationals who did not have a Greek high school certificate were, however, required to pass an examination in Greek language and history.   41.   On 20 October 1994 the Ministry of Education requested the Director of Secondary Education of Rhodes to resume examination of the applicants' case in the light of the presidential decree No. 211/1994.   42.   On 14 February 1995 the President of the Commission of the European Community informed a member of the European Parliament that the Commission intended to commence further legal proceedings against Greece because "the Greek legislation (concerning the establishment of frontistiria) continue(d) to contain provisions contrary to the Community principles of non-discrimination, in spite of the repeal of the express nationality clause".   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice   43.   Article 2 of the presidential decree No. 221/1994 provides as follows:        "In addition to what is provided for under Article 68      para. 1 of the emergency law 2545/1940 on private schools,      frontistiria and boarding schools, licences to establish a      frontistirio   shall also be granted to nationals of the      member States of the European Union, provided they have the      qualifications required by law for granting such a licence      to a Greek national. The European Union nationals shall be      required to produce similar supporting documents as well as      the certificate provided for under Article 14 para. 10 of      law 1566/1985, which shall apply by analogy."        Article 14 para. 10 of law 1566/1985 provides the following:        "If the candidates ..... do not hold a Greek high school      certificate, a certificate shall be required to the effect      that they are fluent in Greek and know Greek history. To      obtain such a certificate the candidates must pass an      examination, as the Ministry of Education and Religious      Affairs will decide."   44.   Under Article 95 para. 5 of the Greek Constitution all administrative authorities must comply with the decisions of the Council of State which set aside acts of the administration.        Article 50 para. 4 of the presidential decree No. 18/1989 provides that the administrative authorities, in fulfilling their obligations under Article 95 para. 5 of the Constitution, must comply with the decisions of the Council of State by either taking positive measures or refraining from any action which is contrary to the decision, depending on the circumstances of each case.   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.    Complaint declared admissible   45.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the State authorities failed to comply within a reasonable time with the decisions of the Council of State which set aside an administrative act refusing to grant them a licence to establish a foreign language school.   B.    Point at issue   46.   The point at issue is whether the State authorities' failure to comply within a reasonable time with the decisions of the Council of State amounts to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.     C.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   47.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides the following:        "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. ...."   48.   The applicants submit that the proceedings before the Council of State complied with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. They argue, however, that the State authorities' continuing refusal to comply with the decisions of the Council of State violates their right to effective judicial protection in the determination of their civil rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   49.   The Greek Government do not contest that the proceedings before the Council of State involved a determination of the applicants' civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. They submit, however, that the requirements of this provision were complied with, since the applicants had a fair and public hearing and the Council of State issued its decision within a reasonable time. Once the Council of State issued a decision which determined the dispute between the applicants and the administrative authorities, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) was no longer applicable. The Government submit that the stage of execution of a court decision does not involve a new   determination of rights. To argue the contrary would go against the letter of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and the intentions of the drafters of the Convention. In any event, the compliance or not of the State authorities with Council of State decisions which quash administrative acts is clearly a public law issue. In the light of all the above, the Government conclude that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was not violated.   50.   The Commission observes at the outset that the applicants do not complain of the length of the proceedings before the Council of State, but "of the length of time taken by the Greek Ministry of Education to deal with their applications" which had as a result that the decisions of the Council of State remained unenforced.   51.   It further observes that the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention to the proceedings instituted by the applicants before the Council of State is not disputed between the parties. The Commission recalls in this connection that the refusal of the competent authority to allow a private school to provide the higher stages of compulsory education has already been found to give rise to a determination of civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Jordebo Foundation of Christian Schools v. Sweden, Comm. Report 8.12.87, para. 86, D.R. 61 p. 103).   52.   The Commission considers that the refusal of the competent authorities to issue a licence required under domestic law for the establishment of a private foreign language school, which would have provided extra-curriculum tuition in accordance with the applicable domestic rules, similarly involves a determination of civil rights. The applicants were refused such a licence on the ground that they were aliens. They challenged the lawfulness of the relevant administrative act under Community law rules protecting nationals of member States of the European Union from discrimination. The Commission considers that this gave rise to a genuine and serious dispute the outcome of which directly affected the applicants' civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   53.   The Commission further observes that the parties essentially agree that the dispute could be submitted before a judicial body, the Council of State, which had full jurisdiction, insofar as it was competent to review the lawfulness of the relevant administrative act under European Community law, and which provided all the guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Moreover, the applicants do not dispute the Government's assertion that the proceedings before the Council of State were fair and expeditious. It would, therefore, appear that the applicants had access to a tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   54.   The Commission, however, recalls that the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, is only one aspect of the right to a court embodied in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36). Although the Court has not considered it necessary to give a comprehensive definition of the exact content of this right, it has ruled that the Contracting States' widely proclaimed profound belief in the rule of law must be taken into consideration when interpreting the various guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) according to their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention (Golder judgment, referred to above, pp. 17 and 18, paras. 34-36). Bearing in mind the rule of law principle in mind, the Commission must determine whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides guarantees against actions of State authorities which could thwart the protection afforded by the courts.   55.   The Commission recalls in this connection that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights which are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective. This is particularly so as regards the various rights guaranteed under Article 6 (Art. 6) given the prominent place they hold in a democratic society (see Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12 and 13, para. 24 and Artico judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, para. 33). Yet the right to a court would be rendered entirely illusory and theoretical if State authorities could refuse, without acting in breach of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, to comply with court decisions issued against them in disputes involving the determination of civil rights and obligations. The Court has already considered that Article 6 (Art. 6) is violated where a State authority has the statutory power to decide that a tribunal's decision issued against it in a dispute concerning civil rights should not be followed (Eur. Court H.R., Van der Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 17, para. 52). The situation where a State authority simply refuses to comply with a court decision issued against it is largely comparable insofar as the consequences of the litigation for the State authority's opponent are concerned.   56.   Turning to the particular circumstances of the applicants, the Commission recalls that the Council of State in its decisions of 9 and 10 May 1989 vindicated the applicants' position ruling that they could not be refused a licence to establish a foreign language school on the ground that they were foreigners and quashed the relevant administrative acts. Under domestic law the competent State authorities were required to take all appropriate steps to comply with the decisions of the Council of State.   57.   The applicants submit that the competent authorities continue to refuse to take such steps. The respondent Government, however, suggest that the State authorities discharged their obligations by promulgating the presidential decree No. 221/1994 (see para. 39 supra). The Commission does not consider it necessary to resolve the issue whether, by promulgating the above-mentioned decree, the State authorities complied with the decisions of the Council of State.   58.   The Commission notes that the decree was promulgated more than five years after the decisions of the Council of State which vindicated the applicants' position. During this period and despite the applicants' various and numerous protests, the State authorities did not take any steps to comply with the decisions of the Council of State. Moreover, notwithstanding the promulgation of the presidential decree No. 221/1994, the applicants have never received a formal reply to their applications for a licence to establish a foreign language schools which they re-submitted on 8 August 1989.   59.   In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the applicants did not have the benefit of effective judicial protection. As a result, their right to an effective determination of their rights by a court has been violated.        CONCLUSION   60.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, by 27 votes to 1, that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (S. TRECHSEL)                                                    (Or. English)               CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS        While I agree that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective determination of their rights by a court, I am of the opinion that the reasoning of the Commission does not address the central problem of the case, which is the responsibility of the administration to comply with judicial decisions, and, thus, to honour the principle of separation of powers and respect the rule of law.        It is indeed part and parcel of the concept of separation of powers and of the principle of the rule of law in a democratic State that each power - the legislative power, the executive power and the judicial power - has its own field of competence, within which it is the only entity with decision-making capacity. In this field no other power can enter and interfere with decisions on the procedure or the merits. But the requirements of the concept of separation of powers go beyond stipulating that each State power has its own sphere of exclusive activity. A corollary of the principle of separation of powers is that, wherever there is an osmosis of competence involving more than one power in the effective implementation of a decision taken by one of them, the power which "interferes" with the decision must co- operate in putting it into effect. Otherwise, the power of decision- making may be devoid of all significance. It is, for instance, an obligation of the judiciary to apply the decisions of the legislative power (legislation) when it decides on a case, as it is the obligation of the executive to assist in the implementation of judicial decisions by executing them without hindering that implementation.        In the circumstances of the case, the State authorities - the executive power - have not complied with the rule of separation of powers and have prevented the judiciary from deciding in its own sphere of competence; and, hence, the applicants did not see their expectation of an effective determination of their rights fulfilled.                                                     (Or. French)                DISSENTING OPINION OF Mr. F. MARTINEZ        Much to my regret, I cannot share my colleagues' opinion.   Here are my reasons:        Article 6 of the Convention is violated if a court fails to give a ruling within a reasonable time.   On the facts of this case, the court, that is, the Council of State, is not the subject of any criticism.        The authorities are criticised for letting five years go by without giving a decision on the fresh application lodged by the applicants.        The question arises whether the authorities' delay can constitute a violation of Article 6.        The Commission considers in its report that the authorities had a duty to enforce the Council of State's decision, which they failed to do.   The Commission therefore finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive.        I cannot subscribe to such an approach.        The Council of State's decisions of 9 and 10 May 1989, to which the Commission refers in paragraph 24 of its report, did not establish a subjective right in favour of the applicants, as the latter had merely filed an application for judicial review (recours en excès de pouvoir in French terminology).   It is in that context that the authorities' decision to reject the applicants' request for a licence to open a foreign language school, on the ground that they were not Greek nationals, was set aside by the Council of State.        It cannot be inferred from those decisions - and I am adamant about this - that the applicants had a right to open the school.   The decisions, which were given following an application for judicial review, are confined to setting aside the refusal, on grounds of the applicants' nationality, to grant a licence.   They are therefore merely declaratory decisions and are not enforceable by the authorities.        The only obligation on the authorities is not to refuse to grant a licence on grounds of the applicants' nationality.   They remain free, however, to grant or reject a further application by the applicants for reasons other than their nationality.        Thus, when the applicants lodged a fresh application on 8 August 1989 (see paragraph 26 of the Report), the obligation on the authorities was not to enforce the Council of State's decisions, but to reply to a further application.        Does the fact that the authorities allowed five years to go by without replying constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Convention? This is the crux of the matter!        My view is that had the authorities' delay prevented the applicants from applying to the administrative courts, they may have been able to make out an indirect violation of Article 6 of the Convention.   That was not the case, however.   The applicants could, in this case, after three months' silence on the part of the authorities, have applied to the Council of State contesting the implicit rejection of their application.        In the circumstances, as the applicants have apparently had the time (and patience) to wait five years, rather than bring the case before the administrative courts, they can complain of inertia on the part of the Greek authorities, but not of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.   APPENDIX I   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS   Date                      Item _______________________________________________________________   7 January 1990            Introduction of the application   14 June 1991              Registration of the application   Examination of admissibility   30 June 1993              Commission's decision to communicate the                          case to the respondent Government and to                          invite the parties to submit observations                          on admissibility and merits   20 October 1993           Commission's decision to grant the                          respondent Government an extension   10 December 1993          Government's observations   17 February 1994          Applicant's observations in reply   31 August 1994            Commission's decision to declare the                          application admissible   Examination of the merits   27 September 1994         Decision on admissibility transmitted to                          the parties   1 November 1994           Government's supplementary observations                          requesting the Commission to declare the                          application inadmissible under Article 29                          of the Convention   10 November 1994          Applicants' supplementary information   17 January 1995           Examination of state of proceedings   26 February 1995          Applicant's comments on the Government's                          request for the application to be declared                          inadmissible under Article 29 of the                          Convention   9 March 1995              Applicant's additional comments   11 April 1995             Commission's decision not to grant the                          Government's request to declare the                          application inadmissible under Article 29   17 October 1995           Commission's decision that the case should                          be examined by the Plenary   23 October 1995           Adoption of Report