CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 décembre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     698   8.12.1999     Press release issued by the Registrar     JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 8 December 1999 in the case of Pellegrin v. France (application no. 28541/95), the European Court of Human Rights held by thirteen votes to four that Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a hearing within a reasonable time – was not applicable.   1.   Principal facts   Gilles Pellegrin is a French national who was born in 1945 and lives in Bouroche. In 1989 he had been recruited as a technical adviser to the Minister for the Economy, Planning and Trade of Equatorial Guinea. As head of project, he was to be responsible for drawing up the budget of State investment for 1990 and was to participate in the preparation of the three-year plan and the three-year programme of public investment, in liaison with Guinean civil servants and international organisations. Subsequently, he contested a decision by the French Minister for Cooperation and Development not to offer him a new contract to work as a technical adviser overseas on the ground that he had been declared unfit to serve overseas after undergoing a medical examination.   Legal proceedings which the applicant instituted on 16 May 1990 are still pending in the Paris Administrative Court. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time).   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 July 1995. Having declared the application partly admissible, the Commission adopted a report on 17   September 1998 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (eighteen votes to fourteen). It referred the case to the Court on 9 December 1998. A hearing was held on 16 June 1999. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Tudor Panţîru (Moldovan), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges ,   and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The case concerned the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to disputes between States and their servants – an employee on a fixed-term contract in this case. The Court – reviewing its existing case-law on the question – considered that it should put an end to the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of Article   6   §   1 to disputes about conditions of service between public servants and the States which employ them. To that end, it decided to apply a new, “functional” criterion, based on the nature of the employee’s duties and responsibilities.   The Court accordingly ruled that the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were those raised by public servants whose duties typified the specific activities of the public service in so far as the latter was acting as the depositary of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities. A manifest example of such activities was provided by the armed forces and the police. In practice, the Court will now seek to ascertain, in each case, whether the applicant’s post entails – in the light of the nature of the duties and responsibilities appertaining to it – direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities.   Thus, from now on, no disputes between administrative authorities and employees who occupy posts involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law attract the application of Article   6   §   1. On the other hand, disputes concerning pensions all come within the ambit of Article   6   § 1 because on retirement employees break the special bond between themselves and the authorities.   The facts of the case showed that the tasks assigned to the applicant gave him considerable responsibilities in the field of the State’s public finances, which was, par excellence , a sphere in which States exercised sovereign power. This entailed participating directly in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and the performance of duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State.   Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 was not applicable in the case.   Judge Ferrari Bravo expressed a concurring opinion and Judge Traja a separate opinion. Judges Tulkens, Fischbach, Casadevall and Thomassen expressed a joint dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   * * *   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.