CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 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. 35426/97                       by Dimitra STAIKU                       against Greece          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  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 3 January 1997 by Dimitra STAIKU against Greece and registered on 25 March 1997 under file No. 35426/97;        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 1943. She is a nurse in the army and resides in Athens. In the proceedings before the Commission she is represented by Messrs. V. Polichronopoulos and P. Koukoulakos, both lawyers practising in Athens.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, can be summarised as follows:        On 5 October 1960 the applicant joined the armed forces. On 23 June 1967 she was dismissed because she got married within less than five years from joining the army, which was at the time against the regulations.        On 31 December 1984 the applicant was rehired in the armed forces, her dismissal having been considered to constitute a breach of her fundamental rights. On 25 January 1988 the applicant requested that she should be promoted to the rank which she would have had if she had not remained outside the armed forces between 23 June 1967 and 31 December 1984. On 17 February 1988 she received a negative reply.        On 17 March 1988 the applicant challenged the refusal of the authorities to promote her before the Administrative Court of Appeal (Diikitiko Efetio) which was competent to hear the dispute as a first instance court. The administrative court heard the case on 20 January 1989. On 21 February 1989 the court upheld the refusal of the authorities on the ground that the law which provided for the rehiring of the applicant did not provide for her full rehabilitation insofar as rank was concerned. The court further considered that the provisions of the Constitution of 1975 which guaranteed the free development of one's personality and protected marriage and motherhood did not create an obligation for the legislator to redress retrospectively and in full a breach which had occurred before the entry into force of the Constitution. If the legislator wished to provide such redress it remained free to set the modalities.        On 14 February 1990 the applicant appealed to the Council of State (Simvulio Epikratias), invoking inter alia Article 12 of the Convention. The Council held a hearing on 16 November 1995. On 28 June 1996 the Council rejected her appeal with the same reasoning as the Administrative Court of Appeal. The applicant was notified of this decision on 13 November 1996.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Article 12 of the Convention about her dismissal from the army.   2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains under Article 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention about her dismissal from the army.        The Commission recalls that Greece has recognised the competence of the Commission to examine individual applications concerning facts which occurred after 19 November 1985. However, the applicant was dismissed from the army on 23 June 1967.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis and that it must be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) thereof.   2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the length of the proceedings she instituted to challenge the refusal to promote her.        The Commission recalls that, according to the case-law of the court, disputes relating to the recruitment, careers and termination of service of civil servants are as a general rule outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Neigel v. France judgement of 17 March 1997, para. 43). The applicant is a civil servant and the proceedings she instituted before the administrative courts concerned her career. As a result, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not apply.        It follows that this part of the application incompatible ratione materiae and that it must be rejected as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention under 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