CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   422 28.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BIGAEVA v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Bigaeva v. Greece (application no. 26713/05). The Court held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but no violation of that Article in combination with Article 14, in connection with a refusal by the Athens Bar Council to enrol Mrs Bigeava for the Bar examinations.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mrs Bigaeva 7,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,400 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Violetta Bigaeva is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Athens. In 1993 she settled in Greece, obtained a work permit and was admitted in 1995 to the Athens Law Faculty. In August 1996 she obtained a residence permit on the basis of her student status. In 2000 she obtained a Master’s degree, then in 2002 a postgraduate qualification, and decided to continue with her doctorate.   In the meantime, in 2000, the applicant had been admitted to pupillage by the Athens Bar Council (the “Council”). Under the Legal Practice Code, an eighteen-month pupillage is a prerequisite for admission to the Bar. According to a certificate issued in 2007 by the Council, the applicant had been admitted to pupillage by mistake; it had been assumed that she was a Greek citizen as she had a Master’s degree from a Greek university.   After she had completed her pupillage, in 2002, the Council refused to allow Mrs Bigaeva to sit for the Bar examinations on the grounds that she was not a Greek national, as required by Article 3 of the Legal Practice Code. The applicant then lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court an application to have that refusal set aside, together with a request for the stay of execution of the decision in question.   In September 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court granted Mrs Bigaeva’s request for a stay of execution so that she could sit for the examinations. After passing them, she applied to the Ministry of Justice to be admitted to the Athens Bar Council’s roll. As the Ministry failed to reply, the applicant again appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, this time against the Ministry’s tacit refusal to admit her to the Council’s roll. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed Mrs Bigaeva’s two appeals in 2005, taking the view, among others, that in view of the important role of lawyers in the administration of justice, the State enjoyed wide discretion in regulating the conditions of access to the profession. Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the rejection of the applicant’s request to sit for the Bar examinations had been legal and had not infringed her right to the free development of her personality and, accordingly, that the Ministry of Justice had justifiably denied her request for admission to the Bar Council’s roll.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 July 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges ,   and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mrs Bigaeva alleged that the rejection of her request to sit for the examinations with a view to being admitted to the Athens Bar Council’s roll constituted an unlawful interference with her right to respect for her professional life and that the exclusion of foreign nationals from the legal profession represented a discriminatory measure.     Decision of the Court   Article 8     The Court observed that restrictions imposed on professional life might fall within the ambit of Article 8 when they affected the way an individual built his social identity by developing relationships with other human beings.   In the present case, the prospect of sitting for the examinations after her pupillage was the climax of a long personal and academic endeavour for Mrs Bigaeva, reflecting her desire to become integrated into Greek society.   The authorities, who did not raise the issue of nationality until the end of the process, allowed her to carry out her pupillage and left her with hope, even though she was clearly not going to be entitled to sit for the subsequent examinations.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8, as the authorities had shown a lack of coherence and respect towards Mrs Bigaeva and her professional life.     Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14   Mrs Bigaeva accused the State of excluding non-EU foreign nationals from access to the legal profession, in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.   The Court reiterated that the Convention did not guarantee the right to freedom of profession and that the legal profession was somewhat special because of its public-service aspects.   It was therefore for the Greek authorities to decide on the conditions of nationality for admission to legal practice. The Court could not call into question the decision they had taken not to allow Mrs Bigaeva to sit for the examinations organised by the Council on an objective and reasonable basis, namely Article 3 of the Legal Practice Code.   The Court accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 8 taken together with Article 14 of the Convention.   Judges Vajić, Malinverni and Nicolaou appended a joint partly dissenting opinion to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.