CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 octobre 2013

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167 October 2013 Giavi v. Greece - 25816/09 Judgment 3.10.2013 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Application of special provisions setting shorter time-limit for claims by members of staff of public bodies: no violation   Facts – On 18   June 1997 the applicant, a cleaner, brought an action against the hospital in which she worked, claiming wage supplements and allowances she had allegedly not been paid between 1   June 1994 and 21   March 1997, the date of her retirement. In July 2001 the court of appeal awarded her some of the amount she had claimed but held that her claims for the period from 1   June to 31   December 1994 were time-barred by the two-year limitation period set out in the decree on the compatibility of public-law entities, contracts and limitation periods. The applicant appealed on points of law. She alleged that there was no valid reason justifying the application of a two-year limitation period for claims by employees against public entities, when the ordinary limitation period applicable to claims by other private individuals against third parties was five years. She emphasised that the financial interests of public entities could not justify granting them favourable treatment to the detriment of their employees. Her appeal on points of law was dismissed. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The applicant’s claims for the period from 1   June to 31   December 1994, which the court of appeal had found to be time-barred, came within the scope of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and the right to the protection of property guaranteed by it, which sufficed to render Article   14 of the Convention applicable. The mere fact that the applicant’s claims had been subjected to a time-limit raised no issue under the Convention. Moreover, the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest was not in doubt. Thus, the claims of employees in public-law entities could justify regulation in the interest of the public purse, the efficient management of public funds and the continuity of public service. According to the highest national courts (the Court of Cassation, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Special Supreme Court), the public interest targeted by the special two-year limitation period was, in particular, the need for speedy settlement of debts arising from the monthly allowances paid by public-law entities, rapid payment being necessary to ensure protection of the assets and financial situation of those entities, to which citizens contributed through the payment of taxes. In contrast to the situation in the Zouboulidis case, in which the arguments relied on by the Government had been general and abstract in nature, the information submitted in the present case illustrated the unpredictability that claims lodged several years after the event could create for legal entities, obliging them to set aside public funds in order to cover obligations which could arise in an unforeseeable manner, and also the   adverse consequence of such claims on their budgets. In addition, it was undeniable that decisions on the merits of such claims would lie with the courts and would risk further overloading their lists.   It was for the domestic legal system of the State concerned to regulate the procedural rules on judicial remedies in such a way as to ensure protection of the rights of State employees, so long as those rules did not in practice render impossible or unduly difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by the domestic legal order. In the Court’s opinion, a two-year limitation period did not unduly limit the possibility for State employees to claim, through the courts, any salaries and allowances owed to them by the authorities. In the present case, the applicant had not indicated tangible factors which would have prevented or dissuaded her in any way from pursuing her remedy in the two years after her claim arose. Finally, in contrast to the Zouboulidis case, the applicant in the present case concentrated her complaint primarily on the alleged difference in treatment between State employees, on the one hand, and private-sector employees or the State’s creditors (other than its own employees), on the other. These situations were not comparable: there was no analogy between civil servants and private-sector employees. As to the other creditors, for the most part these were suppliers who had an occasional relationship with the State when performing services for which they had been contracted, and not an ongoing employment relationship, as was the case for civil servants. Moreover, the Special Supreme Court had highlighted the different legal regimes governing the relationships between those two categories of employees and their employers. This was particularly relevant given that, under the Constitution, civil servants could not be removed from post. These differences in regime could justify granting private-sector employees a longer period in which to bring their pay disputes before the courts. Consequently, the application of the special provisions laying down a two-year limitation period in respect of claims by employees of public-law entities had not upset the fair balance to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the public interest. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See Zouboulidis v. Greece (no. 2) , 36963/06, 25   June 2009, Information Note   120 )   © 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