CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20034/18 Grigorios GIKAS against Greece lodged on 23 April 2018 communicated on 9 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the legislative provision based on which the permanent residents of municipalities with less than 10,000 habitants get absolute priority in competitions for appointments in positions in these municipalities, irrespective of their grading. The applicant participated in a competition for appointment of an employee in Municipality of Pogoni of Ioannina Prefecture. Even though he received the highest points, another candidate was selected for the position, because she was permanent resident of the said Municipality. The applicant appealed against the decision to appoint the other candidate, arguing that the said legislative provision was in breach of the principle of equality. His appeal was granted by the Ioannina Administrative Court of Appeal in its judgment no. 220/2009. The Supreme Council on Staff Appointments (Ανώτατο Συμβούλιο Επιλογής Προσωπικού – ΑΣΕΠ) lodged an appeal against that decision. The applicant in his memorandum submitted that his opponent’s appeal had been lodged out of the time-limit of sixty days and thus, should be rejected as inadmissible. He further reiterated his arguments that the said legislative provision was in breach of the principle of equality. The Supreme Administrative Court by its judgment no. 2741/2017 granted the appeal and considered that the law served the legitimate aim of the development of border areas with the presence of the permanent residents in them. It did not reply to the applicant’s argument about the appeal having been lodged out of time. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the tacit refusal of his objection of inadmissibility of the appeal. He also complains that the legislative provision based on which another candidate was appointed in the position, even though he had received higher points, amounted to violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that he didn’t receive any reply to his objection as to the admissibility of the appeal lodged against him (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§   80 ‑ 81, ECHR 2004-I)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, concerning the decision not to appoint him to the position for which he had obtained the highest points in the relevant competition? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment? If so, was the different treatment based on an identifiable, objective or personal characteristic, or “status”, by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from one another (see Clift v.   the United Kingdom , no.   7205/07 , § 55, 13 July 2010)? Furthermore, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and have a reasonable justification, having also regard to the fact that permanent residents already received additional 150 points because of their place of residence and in any event, all successful participants in the competition were bound to stay in that position for at least ten years (see   Napotnik v. Romania , no. 33139/13, § 71, 20   October 2020, and Jurčić v. Croatia , no.   54711/15 , § 69, 4 February 2021)?