5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Villavente (León). 6.  He worked as a teacher, also acting as head of department, in a public school, the León School of Arts and Crafts (Escuela de Artes y Oficios de León). One of his colleagues – a teacher in the same department – filed a complaint against him with the education authorities for psychological harassment in the workplace. The complaint was dismissed on the basis that there had been no harassment but mere disputes at work. 7.  On 20 June 2006 the colleague filed an administrative claim with the Department of Education of the Regional Government of Castilla-León aimed at seeking redress for the malfunctioning of the public administration. She requested that the administration be found liable for the alleged psychological harassment in the workplace. The competent authorities did not render a decision within the requisite time-limit. 8.  On 25 January 2007 the colleague instituted judicial proceedings (recurso contencioso-administrativo) against the implied rejection of her request of 20 June 2006. She claimed that the applicant had subjected her to workplace harassment, from the academic year 2000/01 onwards in particular, and that the competent authorities had failed to take any measures to prevent it. She described a series of events in which the applicant had allegedly made false accusations against her and subjected her to discriminatory and humiliating treatment, disrespect, insults and death threats at work in the presence of students, parents and other colleagues. The colleague further requested compensation from the Regional Administration of Castilla-León in the amount of 74,434.12 euros (EUR), as well as reinstatement in her position as a teacher at the León School of Arts and Crafts, requesting that all appropriate measures be taken to prevent any possible risks, particularly psychosocial, in the workplace. 9.  On 19 December 2007, after notice of the aforementioned application was given, the respondent – the Regional Administration of Castilla-León – contested the claims and requested the dismissal of the application. 10.  By a judgment (no. 2491/2011) of 2 November 2011, the High Court of Justice of Castilla-León (Administrative Chamber) ruled against the Regional Administration of Castilla-León, ordering it to pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 14,500. It concluded that the situation suffered by her amounted to workplace harassment and that the education authorities, despite being aware of the situation, had not taken effective measures to bring it to an end. Although the court acknowledged that not all the acts or behaviour attributed to the applicant could be considered psychological harassment, it found that on the basis of the evidence collected a situation of psychological harassment in the workplace had been shown to exist.
The High Court of Justice included the following reasoning concerning the applicant, who was frequently identified by name:
“... from the documentary, witness and expert evidence [in the proceedings] [the court] can find that ... a situation of psychological harassment in the workplace has been shown [to exist] on the basis that the head of department’s conduct towards the claimant met the material element – unjustified professional harassment – the temporal element – regular and repeated – and the element of intent – malicious and not by chance – of the so-called bullying (mobbing) ...
a) Not all the acts or behaviour that the plaintiff attributed to Mr Vicent ... constitute psychological harassment towards her ...
b) ... although it should also be considered established that the behaviour ... of Mr Vicent ... was to a certain degree general or collective, ... in the particular case of the plaintiff ... this general behaviour of a lack of respect and manners was translated, more intensively and strongly, into repeated and conscious professional discredit, of underestimation and mockery of her teaching ability, that resulted not only from the documented complaints already described ..., but particularly from the expressive witness evidence ...” 11.  On 15 December 2011 the applicant requested to have access to the file and to become a party to the proceedings. He claimed to have learned of the judgment some days earlier through the publication of information in a León newspaper (Diario de León). 12.  By a decision of 23 January 2012, the High Court of Justice of Castilla-León granted the applicant access to the file but refused his request to be a party to the proceedings on the basis that he could not be considered to be an interested party in liability proceedings against the public administration. 13.  On 1 February 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above-mentioned decision requesting the annulment of the proceedings. The High Court of Justice of Castilla-León dismissed it by a decision of 2 March 2012. On the one hand, the court held that the request for annulment of the proceedings had been made outside the time-limit prescribed by law, since an “appeal for annulment” (incidente de nulidad) should have been submitted within twenty days of the date the applicant became aware of a possible breach of his rights. The court took into account that the applicant had claimed that he had learned of the judgment through the publication of information in a newspaper on 9 and 10 December 2011, and that in any case on 15 December 2011 (the date on which he had requested access to the file and to become a party to the proceedings) he had clearly known the decisive elements for his complaints.
The court nevertheless decided on the merits. It stressed that the proceedings were aimed at determining liability for the damage suffered by the claimant as a result of the acts of the authorities and staff working for the public administration. Therefore, in line with section 145 of Law 30/1992 and the relevant subordinate legislation, within such proceedings neither the authorities nor civil servants could be sued nor, accordingly, could they be a party to the proceedings. The national legislature had set up liability proceedings against the public administration excluding the possibility of its authorities or staff becoming interested parties to them even though in all cases the public officials concerned were identifiable; their professional conduct was being judged and hence their honour and moral integrity could eventually be affected; there was a possibility that the administration concerned would institute a “recovery action” against them; and the administrative or judicial decisions were subject to potential media coverage.
Despite acknowledging that public officials’ professional conduct was being judged and that their honour and moral integrity could be affected, the court held: (i) that the proceedings involved disputes exclusively between the public administration and alleged victims of the acts of its public officials; (ii) that the authorities and staff allegedly causing the damage could not be considered to be interested parties for the purposes of section 31 of Law 30/1992; and (iii) that both liability and compensation are sought from the public administration, as opposed to the public officials concerned. Lastly, the court stated that the public official concerned would only be considered to be an interested party in a recovery action (acción de repetición) under section 145(2) of Law 30/1992, in which each and every one of the elements constituting the liability for which recovery was sought could be contested, including the acts attributed to him or her.
The court thus concluded that the concept of an “interested party” in liability proceedings brought against the public administration should be understood as referring to those allegedly injured by the acts of public officials. The restriction on public officials being a party to such (administrative or judicial) proceedings was however justified by the special nature, purpose and scope of liability proceedings brought against the public administration. According to the court, such proceedings were set up to facilitate redress and compensation for those affected by the acts of public officials. Otherwise, the proceedings would require each and every public official concerned (including, for example, the school management board and education inspectorate, or doctors, nurses, porters and so forth in cases related to healthcare) to be summoned to appear in proceedings in their own defence and with their own representatives, contrary to the regulatory developments, that essentially simplified the proceedings for the benefit of those injured or affected by the public administration. 14.  The applicant then lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, invoking a breach of Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution (right to a fair trial). He claimed that, despite his having a direct and personal interest in the proceedings on the basis that his rights and legitimate interests had been affected, he had not been summoned to appear and his request to become a party to the proceedings had been refused. The court declared the appeal inadmissible by a decision of 2 October 2012 (served on the applicant on 9 October 2012) on the grounds that it had not duly justified its special constitutional significance.