CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86 May 2006 Lederer v. Germany (dec.) - 6213/03 Decision 22.5.2006 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Disbarment of a lawyer upon appointment to public office with tenure: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Disbarment of a lawyer upon appointment to public office with tenure: inadmissible   The applicant had been registered as a lawyer since 1980. In 1997 he was appointed as a law lecturer with the status of probationary civil servant. In May 1999 he was made a permanent civil servant. In September 1999 his name was struck off the Bar Council roll in accordance with the legislation in force, on the ground that he had not withdrawn his name from the roll despite being appointed as a permanent civil servant. The decision to strike his name off the roll was upheld by the relevant courts. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Although the applicant’s appointment as a university lecturer as his principal activity would most likely have resulted in any case in his scaling down his activities as a lawyer, the Court acknowledged that disbarment of the applicant, who had been obliged to shut down his legal practice, had led to the loss of some of his clients. There had therefore been interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. That interference amounted to a control of the use of property, which fell to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference had a statutory basis in the legislation in force and the settled case-law of the relevant courts. It had been designed to promote the public interest in ensuring the independence of the profession of lawyer in the interests of the proper administration of justice. As to whether the interference had been proportionate, the Court observed that the domestic courts had given detailed reasons why the domestic legislation did not permit any exceptions to the rule of incompatibility between the functions of lawyer and permanent civil servant in the case of university lecturers. One reason was that, notwithstanding the relative degree of freedom enjoyed by university lecturers, the factors held in common with other permanent civil servants carried more weight, as illustrated in particular by the fact that the applicant had had to seek permission from his employer in order to carry on a secondary activity and that he had to declare any income in excess of a certain amount to his employer. A second reason was that, in practice, a number of procedural provisions allowed law lecturers to plead before the domestic courts, and in particular before the Federal Constitutional Court, on the same basis as lawyers: manifestly ill‑founded . Inadmissible under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicant argued that he had been discriminated against, since university lecturers who were appointed as permanent civil servants could practise as tax advisers or auditors but not as lawyers. In his view, that amounted to an unjustified difference in treatment. However, there was a clear difference between the professions referred to by the applicant and the profession of lawyer, which involved a much broader range of activities as an independent law officer: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes