Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19771207-650474
Timestamp: 2017-04-29 23:36:20+00:00
Document Index: 221768561

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', '§ 1', "l'article 10", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 26", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 26", "l'article 27", '§ 3', "l'article 26", "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', '§ 2', "l'article 10", "l'article 10", "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 10", "l'article 6", '§ 1', '§ 1']

PREIKHZAS c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche PREIKHZAS c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6504/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-12-07;6504.74 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : PREIKHZASDéfendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE No . 6504/74 Dieter PREIKHZAS v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY' Dieter PREIKHZAS c/RÃPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE '
DECISION of 7 December 1977 on the admissibility of the applicatio n DÃCISION du 7 dÃ©cembre 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
An'icte 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Question whether a dispute between a public admintstration and one of its employees under contract concerns the determination of the latter's civil righrs and obligations . Length of proceedings before labour courts. Importance attached to the sreps undertaken by the applicant in order to speed up proceedings Icomplaint declared admissible) . Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies . No effective remedy available to speed up proceedings before the labour courts .
Article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention : Question de savoir si un Iitige entre une administration publique et l'un de ses employÃ©s sous contrat porte sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil de ce dernier . UurÃ©e d'une procÃ©dure devant les tribunaux du travail . Importance accordÃ©e aux dÃ©marches ellectuÃ©es par le requÃ©rant pour activer la procÃ©dure . (Grief dÃ©c/arÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes absence de recours efficace pour accÃ©lÃ©rer le dÃ©roulement d'une procÃ©dure devant les tribunaux du travail .
â¢ The applicant is repreaented before the Commission by Mr Werner Kordt, a barrister practising in lÃ sen . Le repuÃ©rant est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Me Werner Kordt, avocat Ã© Fssen .
Summary of the facts (franÃ§ais : voir p . 10) The applicant was employed on the basis of a contract with the Social Insurance Office of Lower Saxony . As he was employed for life and was subject to Service Regulations of a public law nature IDienstordnungl, he enjoyed a status close to that of a civil servant. In 1971 he was transferred to a higher post and shortly afterwards was transferred back again . This gave rise to a dispute as a result of which his employer, by notice of 27 April 1972, decided by way of a drsciplinary measure to suspend him on half pay . On 24 May 1974 he was dismrsse d The applicant brought the following actions : a . A request for an interim injunction before the Labour Court at Celle which ordered on 2 April 1977 that the applicant be maintained in rhe post to which he had been promoted. This order was however revoked on 19 April 1971 on appeal lodged by the employer . b. An action challenging his reduction in grade which was dismissed by the Labour Court on 4 October 1971 and by the Labour Court of Appeal ILandesarbeitsgerichtl in Lower Saxony on 30 August 1973. c . An action challenging the reduction of pay filed with the Labour Court on 10 June 1973 After various incidents and a decision to stay the proceedings pending a decision on the action referred to under d), the applicant's claim was dismissed by the Labour Court on 13 July 7977. He has lodged an appeal. d . An action challenging his dismissal, filed on 30 May 1974 A judgment in the applicant's favour was given by rhe Labour Courr on 13 November 1975 . The employer lodged an appeal Before the Commission the applicant complains of the length of proceedings before the labour courts and invokes Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention . He also invokes Article 10 alleging that he was dismissed for having complained of his superiors . The application was introduced on 14 February 1974, but was in view of supplementary information submitted by the applicant brought to the attention of the Commission for the first time on 9 May 1977 .
THE LAW 1 . The applicant was employed by a social insurance agency (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) which is an organisation of public law He had, however, a contract of employment . In 1971 he engaged in a dispute with his employer about his transfer to another post In 1972 he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which resulted provisionally in the reduction of his salary and i n
his dismissal . Labour law was applicable to both these measures and the applicant brought actions challenging them in the Labour Courts in June 1973 and May 1974 . To date there is no final decision . He complained that these actions were not being determined within a reasonable time . 2 . The Commission invited the respondent Government to submit its observations on the admissibility of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 111 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceeding s The respondent Government submitted that the application was inadmissible for the reasons that the application was premature and the requirements ot Article 26 of the Convention had not been fulfilled and that the application was manifestly ill-founded . The matter of applicability of Article 6 111 of the Convention was therefore irrelevant, but could be dealt with if the application was admitted and after judgment had been pronounced in the Kdnig case which was pending before the European Court of Human Rights IApplication No . 6232/73, Eberhard Kbnig against Federal Republic of Germany, Report of the Commission, adopted on 14 December 1976) . The applicant maintained his complaint . 3 . The Commission has carried out a preliminary examination of the information and arguments supplied by the parties . 4 . Considering the argument that the application does not fulfill the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention 7he Commission makes the following remark : If the Commission receives an application concerning the length of proceedings and if the situation is developing while the files are being prepared, it will have to assess further factual circumstances which come to its knowledge . The Government does not suggest that the applicant had a specific remedy to speed up the proceedings whereby he challenged his dismissal . These were the proceedings which began on 30 May 1974 and in which judgment was given in favour of the applicant on 13 November 1975 and in which the appeal is pendinq since . The Government mentions the Constitutional Appeal without, however, explaining on what basis and at which time the applicant could have used this as an effective remedy . Concerning the proceedings whereby the applicant made a claim tor salary, the Government argues that he should have appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings on 14 October 1974 and to give priority to the dismissal case . The Commission is of the opinion, however, that it was in principle reasonable to stay the salary case in order to await the outcome of the dismissal case . It does not seem, therefore, that the applicant had an effective remedy for speeding up the salary proceedings . - 7 -
The Commission cannot therefore declare the application inadmissible under Article 27 131 for non-compliance with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 of the Convention . 5 . The Commission has then considered the duration of the applicant's proceedings in the light of its case law . It observes that ihe applicant's actions concerning his transfer took almost two-and-a-half years . The only relevant gap in these proceedings was between the judgment on 4 October 1971 and the hearing of the appeal on 16 August 1973 or nearly two years . However, there is in the first place no indication in the observations of the parties that the applicant felt aggrieved by this delay and took any steps to pursue his action . This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention and inadmissible on that ground . The pay case began on 21 June 1973 and was dismissed in the court of first instance on 13 July 1977 . This period is slightly longer than four years . During these proceedings the applicant made repeated requests that the case be heard at an early date . The information available gives no satisfactory explanation for delays adding up to some three-and-a-half years . The Commission is not, therefore, satisfied that it has been shown that this action is being determined within a reasonable time . The action challenging dismissal began on 30 May 1974 and a second hearing on appeal is scheduled for 5 April 1978 This period is almost four years . Apparently the applicant made no request to have these proceedings hastened, but to an extent their duration seems to have been outside the control of the parties . The information available gives no clear and satisfactory explanation for delays, which might add up to some three years . The Commission is not, therefore, satisfied that it has been shown that this action is being determined within a reasonable time either . In both cases it cannot, therefore, come to the conclusion that the application is manifesrly ill-founded . 6 . It will therefore also be necessary to consider as a preliminary issue the applicability of Article 6 111 to the applicant's legal actions . The Commission observes that the relationship between the applicant and his employer is a contractual relationship and disputes about it are governed by labour law and the Labour Couns are competent to determine them . It cannot, therefore, be said that complaints concerning such disputes clearly fall outside the scope of Article 6 (1) and are incompatible rarione mareriae with the provisions of the Convention . It is a question of interpretation of Article 6(1 ) whether its application may be restricted because of the nature of the applicant's contract and his functions . This is an important question under the Convention and it canno t
be decided without further argument . In this respect the application is not, therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Arucle 27 121 of the Convention . 7 . The applicant also alleged that he was dismissed because he had expressed his opinion by lodging various complaints against his superiors . In his view, consequently, Article 10 of the Convention had been violated . Article 10 of the Convention provides that everyone has the right to freedom ot expression and that the exercise of this freedom may be subject to certain specified restrictions . However, in the present case the applicant was not prevented from expressing his opinion or punished for having done so, but the number and forms of his various complaints were considered to be contrary to his duties . There is not, therefore, any appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression and this aspect of the application is manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 8
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES INADMISSIBLE :
the part of the application whlch concerns the transfer proceedings which were terminated in the Labour Court of Appeal on 30 August 1973 ;
ii . the complaint that the applicant's dismissal was a penalty contrary to Article 10 of the Convention for his having expressed his opinio n an d DECLARES ADMISSIBLE and retains for an examination of their merits, without prejudging the merits in any way, those parts of the application which raise : J . the question whether the employment situation of the applicant was a matter of civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 111, and if so , ii . the question whether in the proceedings before the labour courts the applicant's actions challenging dismissal and reduction of pay were being determined within a reasonable time within the meaning o f Article 6 (1) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait employÃ© sous contrat par une caisse publique d'assurance-maladie de Basse-Saxe . Titulaire d'un emploi permanent et soumis aux rÃ©glements du service public (Dienstordnung), il jouissait d'un statut voisin de celui d'un fonctionnaire. En 1971 il fut promu Ã un poste plus Ã©/evÃ© puis rÃ©trogradÃ© peu aprÃ©s . 7/ s'ensuivit un conflit Ã la suite duquel son employeur, par avis du 27 avril 1972, prit contre lui une mesure disciplinaire de suspension et de mise Ã la demisolde . Le 24 mai 1974 il fut congÃ©diÃ© . Le requÃ©rant exerca les recours suivants : a. Une demande de mesure provisoire au tribunal du travail de Celle, qui ordonna le 2 avril 1971 le maintien du requÃ©rant au poste auquel il avait Ã©tÃ© promu . Cette ordonnance fur rÃ©voquÃ©e le 19 avril 1971 sur opposition de f'employeur. b . Une action contestam sa rÃ©trogradation, qui fut rejetÃ©e par le tribunal du travail le 4 octobre 1971 et par la cour d'appel du travail ILandesarbeitsgerichtl de Basse-Saxe le 30 aoÃ»t 1973. c Une action en contestation de la mise Ã© la demi-solde introduite devant le tribunal du travail le 10 juin 1973. AprÃ¨s divers incidents et une suspension de la procÃ©dure dans l'attente d'une dÃ©cision sur le recours mentionnÃ© cidessous sub dl, le requÃ©rant fut dÃ©boutÃ© par le tribunal du travail le 13 juillet 1977. ll a fait appel. d. Une action en contestation de son licenciement, introduire le 30 mai 1974 . Un jugement favorable au requÃ©mnt fur rendu par le tribunal du travail le 13 novembre 1975 . L'employeur a interjetÃ© appel se plaint de.DevantlComis,erquÃ©ant la durÃ©e des procÃ©dures devant les juridictions du travail et invoque l'arttcle 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention . Il invoque Ã©galement l'article 10 en faisant valoir qu'il aurait Ã©tÃ© congÃ©diÃ© pour s'Ã©tre plaint de ses supÃ©rieurs . La requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite le 14 fÃ©vrier 1974 mais en raison des exposÃ©s complÃ©mentaires du requÃ©rant, elle fut soumise Ã la Commission pour la premiÃ©re fois le 9 mai 1977.
(TRADUCTION) EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait employÃ© par une caisse d'assurance-maladie IAllgemeine Ortskrankenkassel, Ã©tablissement de droit public . Il Ã©tait toutefois
titulaire d'un contrat de travail En 1971 il eut un diffÃ©rend avec son employeur Ã propos de sa mutation Ã un autre poste . En 1972 il lit l'objet d'une procÃ©dure disciplinaire qui aboutit provisoirement Ã une rÃ©duction de salaire et Ã son licenciement Le droit du travail Ã©tait applicable Ã ces deux mesures et le requÃ©rant les a contestÃ©es par des actions introduites devant les tribunaux du travail en juin 1973 et mai 1974 . Aucune dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive n'a Ã©tÃ© rendue Ã ce jour . II s'est plaint que ces actions n'aient pas donnÃ© lieu Ã une dÃ©cision dans un dÃ©lai raisonable . 2 . La Commission a invitÃ© le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã prÃ©senter ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© du grief du requÃ©rant tirÃ© de l'article 6 Â§ 1 de la Convention et concernant la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soutenu que la requÃ¨te Ã©tait irrecevable au motif qu'elle Ã©tait prÃ©maturÃ©e et que les conditions de l'article 26 de la Convention n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© remplies, et que la requÃ©te Ã©tait manifestement mal fondÃ©e . La question de l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6 Â§ 1 de la Convention pouvait donc Ãªtre laissÃ©e de cdtÃ©, mais pourrait Ã¨tre examinÃ©e si la requÃ©te Ã©tait dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable et aprÃ¨s que l'arrÃ©t aurait Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ© dans l'affaire KÃ´nig, pendante devant la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme IRequÃ¨te NÂ° 6232/73, Eberhard Kbnig contre RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, rapport de la Commission adoptÃ© le 14 dÃ©cembre 1976 ) Le requÃ©rant a confirmÃ© ses griefs . 3 . La Commission a procÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen prÃ©liminaire des informations et arguments fournis par les parties . 4 . Pour ce qui est de l'argument selon lequel la requÃªte ne satisfait pas aux cond~tions de l'article 26 de la Convention la Commission fait la remarque suivante : si la Commission reÃ§oit une requÃªte portant sur la durÃ©e d'une procÃ©dure et si la situation continue Ã Ã©voluer pendant la prÃ©paration des dossiers, la Commission devra apprÃ©cier les nouveaux Ã©lÃ©ments de fait qui viennent Ã sa connaissance . Le Gouvernement ne prÃ©tend pas que le requÃ©rant avait 9 sa disposition un recours spÃ©cifique pour accÃ©lÃ©rer la procÃ©dure dans laquelle il contestait son licenciement, c'est-Ã©-dire la procÃ©dure entamÃ©e le 30 mai 1974, oÃ¹ un jugement favorable au requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ© le 13 novembre 1975 et oÃ¹ un appel est pendant depuis lors . S'il est vrai que le Gouvernement mentionne la voie du recours constitutionnel, il n'explique pas sur quelle base et Ã quel moment le requÃ©rant aurait pu s'en prÃ©valoir comme d'un recours etficace . Concernant la procÃ©dure par laquelle le requÃ©rant a formulÃ© une demande de salaire, le Gouvernement soutient qu'il aurait dÃ¹ recourir contre
la dÃ©cision de suspendre la procÃ©dure et d'accorder la prioritÃ© Ã l'affaire du licenciement, prise le 14 octobre 1974 . La Commission estime toutefois qu'il Ã©tait, en principe, raisonnable de suspendre la procÃ©dure concernant le salaire pour attendre l'issue de la procÃ©dure concernant le licenciement . Il ne semble donc pas que le requÃ©rant ail disposÃ© d'un recours efficace lui permettant de hÃ ter la procÃ©dure relative au salalre . La Commission ne peut donc dÃ©clarer la requÃªte irrecevable, selon l'article 27 Â§ 3, pour non-respect de la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes posÃ©e par l'article 26 de la Convention . 5 . La Commission a ensuite examinÃ©, Ã la lumiÃ¨re de sa jurisprudence, la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure concernant le requÃ©ran t Elle fait obse rv er que la procÃ©dure concernant la mutation du requÃ©rant a pris presque deux ans et demi . Le seul vide dans cette procÃ©dure se situe entre le jugement du 4 octobre 1971 et l'audience d'appel du 16 aoÃ¹t 1973, soit presque deux ans . Cependant, rien dans les obse rvations des parties n'indique que le requÃ©rant se soit Ã©mu de ce retard et ait pris des mesures pour faire progresser l'affaire . Cette part ie de la requÃ¨te est donc manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 Â§ 2, de la Convention, et irrecevable pour ce motif . L'affaire concernant le salaire a commencÃ© le 21 juin 1973 et le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©boutÃ© en premiÃ©re instance le 13 juillet 1977, soit un peu plus de quatre ans aprÃ©s . Au cours de cette procÃ©dure, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises que l'affaire fÃ¹t plus rapidement entendue Les explications fournies ne justifient pas de facon satisfaisante les retards, qui reprÃ©sentent au total quelque trois ans et demi . La Commission n'est donc pas convaincue que cette affaiie ait Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . L'action contestant le licenciement a Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e le 30 mai 1974 et une seconde audience, en appel, est prÃ©vue pour le 5 avril 1978, soit presque quatre ans aprÃ©s . Le requÃ©rant n'a apparemment formulÃ© aucune demande visant Ã ce que la procÃ©dure soit accÃ©lÃ©rÃ©e mais, dans une certaine mesure, les parties ne semblent pas avoir pu agir sur sa durÃ©e . Les informations fournies n'expliquent pas clairement et de faÃ§on satisfaisante les retards, qui pourraient atteindre trois ans environ . Ici Ã©galement, la Commission n'est pas convaincue que cette affaire soit tranchÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . Dans ces deux cas elle ne peut donc conclure que la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e . 6 . La Commission devra donc examiner prÃ©alablement l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6Â§ 1 aux actions judiciaires intentÃ©es par le requÃ©rant . Elle fait observer que les rapports entre le requÃ©rant et son employeur sont des rapports contractuels, que les diffÃ©rends auxquels ils peuvent donner Ile u
sont rÃ©gis par le droit du travail et que les tribunaux du travail sont compÃ©tents pour en connaitre . Elle ne peut donc dire que les griefs relatifs Ã ces diffÃ©rends sortent manifestement du domaine de l'article 6 Â§ 1 et que le grief est incompatible ratione materiae avec les disposilions de la Convention . Constitue une question d'interprÃ©tation de l'article 6Â§ 1 celle de savoir si l'application de cet article peul Ã©tre limitÃ©e en raison de la nature du contrat du requÃ©rant et de ses fonctions . C'est lÃ une question importante au regard de la Convention et on ne saurait en dÃ©cider sans autre argument . A cet Ã©gard, la requÃªte n'est donc pas manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de Particle 27 Â§ 2 de la Convention . 7 . Le requÃ©rant a aussi allÃ©guÃ© qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© licenciÃ© pour avoir exprimÃ© son opinion en portant plusieurs plaintes contre ses supÃ©rieurs . Selon lui, l'article 10 de la Convention aurait donc Ã©tÃ© violÃ© . Selon l'article 10, toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression et l'exercice de ceue libertÃ© peut Ã©tre soumis Ã certaines restrictions dÃ©terminÃ©es . En l'espÃ©ce, toutefois, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© empÃ¨chÃ© d'exprimer son opinion ni sanctionnÃ© pour l'avoir fait, mais le nombre de ses diffÃ©rentes plaintes ont Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©s comme contraires Ã ses devoirs . Il n'y a donc aucune apparence de violation du droit du requÃ©rant Ã la libertÃ© d'expression et cetle partie de la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, donc irrecevable selon l'article 27 Â§ 2 de la Convention . 8 . Par ces motifs, la Commission DECLAREIRRECEVABLES : i . la partie de la requÃ©te qui concerne la procÃ©dure relative Ã la mutation, procÃ©dure qui s'est terminÃ©e devant la cour d'appel du travail le 30 aoÃ»t 1973 ; ii . le grief selon lequel le licenciement du requÃ©rant constituait une sanction contraire Ã l'article 10 de la Convention, parce qu'il avait exprimÃ© son opinion ;
DÃCLARE RECEVABLES et retient, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ©, les parties de la requÃªte qui soulÃ¨vent : i . la question de savoir si les conditions d'emploi du requÃ©rant concernent des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil au sens de l'article 6 Â§ 1 et, dans l'affirmative , ii . la question de savoir si, au cours des procÃ©dures devant les tribunaux du travail, les actions du requÃ©rant contestant le licenciement et la rÃ©duction de salaire ont Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©es dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, au sens de la'article 6 Â§ 1 de !a Convention .
- 13 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/12/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page