CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (dec.) - 63235/00 Decision 29.11.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Administrative proceedings regarding entitlement to wage supplements paid to police officers and an office assistant: admissible   The applicants worked at a police district, five of them as officers and one as an office assistant. Under collective agreements concluded in the 1980s they were entitled to a location-specific allowance later replaced by personal wage supplements. In 1990 the district in question was incorporated into another one, leading to a change of duty station for the applicants and loss of their wage supplements. According to the applicants, the provincial police command had promised that their loss would be compensated but the Ministry of Finance refused to authorise such compensation. The applicants then lodged an administrative-law application for compensation of their losses. A   county administrative court found that the provincial police command had lacked competence to make any binding promises pertaining to compensation. The court therefore interpreted the applicants’ appeal as a request for rectification, which it refused. It found no need for an oral hearing as regards the alleged promise pertaining to compensation. The applicants appealed further, requesting an oral hearing and emphasising that similar allowances had been granted to personnel of other police districts in a corresponding situation. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision but amended the reasoning, finding inter alia that the applicants had enjoyed no statutory right to the wage supplements in question. As the alleged promise by the Provincial Police Command had lacked legal significance there was no need for an oral hearing. The applicants complain about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the terms of their employment as civil servants, the lack of an oral hearing, unlawful deprivation of their possessions without compensation as well as discrimination. Admissible as a whole (Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   © 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