CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 1997

.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. 34213/96                     by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others                     against Greece        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:             Mrs. J. LIDDY, President           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs. M. HION           Mr.   R. NICOLINI             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 16 September 1996 by Elissavet GEORGIADOU and 159 others against Greece and registered on 18 December 1996 under file No. 34213/96;        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 applicants, whose names are available at the Commission's Secretariat, are 160 Greek citizens. They are all employees of the "I Elpis" municipal hospital in Athens. In the proceedings before the Commission they are represented by Mr. I. Stamoulis, a lawyer practising in Athens.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicants, can be summarised as follows:   A.    The particular circumstances of the case        By virtue of section 6 para. 2 of Law 754/1978, published in the Government's Gazette (Efimerida Kiverniseos) on 15 February 1978, a special allowance was granted to all employees of the State and legal persons governed by public law (Nomika Prosopa Dimosiu Dikeu).        On 7 October 1982 the employees of the Athens Municipal Hospital "I Elpis" claimed this allowance for the period between 1 January 1978 and 30 June 1981. On 22 November 1982 the governing body of the hospital decided to satisfy their claim. In the relevant decision the governing body expressly stated that, if the employees' claim had not been granted, they would have instituted court proceedings relying on the provisions of the Constitution prescribing equal treatment of all State employees and they would have won. As a result, the hospital would have had to bear the additional expenditure of the court costs and expenses.        However, on an unspecified date, the Ministry of the Interior ordered the hospital not to pay the allowance.        The applicants instituted proceedings before the First Instance Multi-Member Civil Court (Polimeles Protodikio) of Athens. One group lodged an action on 4 March 1983 and a second group lodged another action on 4 May 1983. Both actions were rejected on 15 June 1987. The applicants' appeals were rejected by the Court of Appeal (Efetio) of Athens on 29 April 1989 and their appeals in cassation were rejected by the Court of Cassation (Arios Pagos) on 19 March 1996.        The Court of Cassation noted that, according to section 12 para. 2 of Law 754/1978, the provisions of this law would apply to local authorities' employees only to the extent that it would be so decided by the competent ministers. However, section 6 para. 2 was not among the provisions of Law 754/1978 which the Ministers of the Interior and Finance decided should apply to local authorities' employees (decision No. 25639/30.3.1978). This was not against the constitutional provisions on equal treatment of State employees, because the position of the employees of local authorities was different from that of other employees of the State. Moreover, the decision of 22 November 1982 of the governing body of the hospital did not give rise to any contractual rights for the plaintiffs, since it had been expressly linked to the principle of equal treatment under the Constitution which, however, could not be relied on by the plaintiffs to claim the allowance.   B.    Relevant domestic practice        By decision No. 6/1992 the Court of Cassation decided that it would be against the constitutional provisions on equal treatment of State employees not to grant the allowance of section 6 para. 2 of Law 754/1978 to the employees of non-municipal State hospitals.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW        The applicants complain that the failure to grant them an allowance which is paid to other State employees including employees of non-municipal State hospitals constitutes a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14 (P1-1+14) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that, in accordance with its case-law, a claim can constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provided that it is sufficiently established (see No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 146; No. 7775/77, Dec. 5.10.78, D.R. 15, p. 143; see also Eur. Court HR, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, p. 84, para. 89). However, the applicants' claim was refused by all the courts which examined it. It cannot, therefore, constitute a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). As a result, the applicants' complaint under that provision is incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.        The Commission further recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention has no independent existence in the sense that it relates only to rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. The applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. It follows that the applicants cannot complain under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention of discrimination in the enjoyment of a right guaranteed by the Convention. As a result, this complaint as well is incompatible ratione materiae with provisions the Convention.        The Commission, therefore, considers that the application must be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) thereof.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                             J. LIDDY      Secretary                                President to the First Chamber                     of the First Chamber