CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mai 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. 75 May 2005 Ahtinen v. Finland (dec.) - 48907/99 Decision 31.5.2005 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings before Cathedral Chapter deciding to transfer priest of a State Church from one parish to another: admissible   Fair hearing Presence of Vicar during Cathedral Chapter’s deliberations leading to transfer of priest from one State Church parish to another: admissible   Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Calculation of six-month period when the only judicial remedy is an extraordinary appeal: preliminary objection dismissed   The applicant had been employed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church (a State Church in Finland) as a parish priest in Rovaniemi for some ten years when the Cathedral Chapter issued him with a warning and eventually decided to transfer him to another parish some 100 kilometres from his home. The applicant had been consulted in writing about the intended transfer and had stated his opposition thereto. As no ordinary appeal lay open he lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging that the Cathedral Chapter had not been impartial as the Vicar of the Parish of Rovaniemi, who was also the chairperson of the local Church Council, had been present when the transfer had been decided. The applicant also claimed that he had not been heard properly prior to the decision. The Supreme Administrative Court invited the Cathedral Chapter to submit observations in reply and communicated these to the applicant, who submitted a rejoinder. As to the allegation of partiality, he submitted that the Cathedral Chapter’s meeting on the question of his transfer had not been preceded by any written document, which meant that his transfer had been based solely on deliberations in which the Vicar of the Parish of Rovaniemi had taken part. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Cathedral Chapter’s decision without examining the merits of the case. Article 35 § 1: The Government argued that the applicant had lodged his application more than six months after the Cathedral Chapter’s decision, whereas the applicant maintained that the six months’ period had begun to run from the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision in response to his extraordinary appeal. The Court observed that no ordinary appeal lay open and accepted, in the particular circumstances, that the six months’ period should be counted from the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (alleged partiality of the Cathedral Chapter and allegedly unfair proceedings; question of applicability of Article 6 joined to the merits). Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded) under Article 8 of the Convention (alleged violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life) as well as under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   © 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