CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 novembre 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 16936/90                       by Andrew TODD                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 November 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 7 April 1989 by Andrew TODD against the United Kingdom and registered on 27 July 1990 under file No. 16936/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The appicant is a British citizen, born in 1940, resident in Lockerbie, Scotland.   Until 1988 he was employed as a teacher.           The facts as submitted by the applicant and as disclosed by the documents are as follows:           On 26 October 1981 the applicant began his employment as a mathematics teacher at Annan Academy, a secondary school in Dumfriesshire.   In 1985 the applicant was an inpatient at a psychiatric hospital, suffering from depression.   In February 1988 the applicant had further treatment for depression.   In early 1988 a staff meeting, at which the applicant was not present, voted by a majority to shorten the lunch time break for pupils and teachers, and end the school day earlier.           In May 1988 the applicant wrote to the Director of Education at the local authority objecting to the changes.   On 27 May 1988 he wrote to the local newspaper, questioning the wisdom of the alteration of the school timetable.           On 31 May 1988 the local authority replied to the applicant, stating that it considered the applicant's objections "frivolous and time wasting".   On the same day, the head teacher at Annan Academy reprimanded the applicant by a letter, headed "oral reprimand" for his having written to the local newspaper without permission on matters to which he had privileged access.           On 1 June 1988 the applicant wrote to the Director of Education at the local authority, appealing against the reprimand.   On 10 June 1988, at the local authority's request, the applicant attended a meeting to discuss the matter.   At the meeting the question of the connection between the applicant's health record and his past actions and the possibility of the applicant's retirement on health grounds was raised.   Another meeting was fixed for 20 June 1988 to discuss in greater detail the best course of action.           Before that meeting the applicant wrote again to the local newspaper questioning the alteration to the timetable.           At the meeting of 20 June 1988 the applicant was asked for permission to approach his doctors for a medical report.   He refused, stating that he was fit to continue teaching.   The local authority insisted that under the applicant's contract of employment it was entitled to order a medical examination.           Following the meeting of 20 June 1988 the applicant consulted solicitors, who wrote to the Director of Education requesting clarification.   The Director's reply of 23 June 1988 stated that he felt obliged to establish the health of the applicant given his past history.   Further if the examination revealed that the applicant had no problems, disciplinary proceedings would be begun against the applicant.           Following the letter, the applicant obtained three medical reports, which all stated that he was fit to teach.           On 27 June 1988 the applicant's solicitor sought clarification from the local authority of the reasons for the threatened disciplinary proceedings.   No reply was forthcoming.   On 5 July 1988 the local authority wrote to the applicant's solicitors suggesting early retirement on health grounds.           On 21 August 1988, after some disagreement with his solicitors about the best course of action, the applicant wrote to the local authority stating that he had been constructively dismissed from his employment, by reason of the pressure put on him to retire on health grounds.           On 16 November 1989 the Industrial Tribunal held that the oral reprimand was not a disciplinary procedure.   Further the local authority had not constructively dismissed the applicant by offering him early retirement on health grounds.           On 29 March 1990 the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 16 November 1989.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the reprimand of 31 May 1988 is an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.   He also invokes Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that an "oral reprimand" given to him by the head teacher for having written to a local newspaper, expressing disatisfaction with a change in the school timetable, and the following suggestions to him, constitute an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression, in violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.           The Commission recalls that in principle it is possible for a disciplinary sanction, even if not resulting in loss of pay, promotion or employment, to constitute an interference within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention (see E. v. Switzerland, No. 10279/83, Dec. 7.5.84, D.R. 38 p. 124).           The Commission notes that the "oral reprimand" of 31 May 1988 was not, and was not regarded as, a general disciplinary measure and that no sanction was, ultimately, imposed on the applicant.   Even assuming that there has been an interference with the applicant's Article 10 (Art. 10) rights, the Commission finds that both the "oral reprimand" given the applicant and the Industrial Tribunal proceedings were prescribed by law and that they pursued goals acceptable under the Convention, namely protecting the reasonable requirements of employers and the provision of a forum for work-related disputes.   Further, bearing in mind the Industrial Tribunal's decision that the applicant had resigned, and that he had therefore not been constructively dismissed, the Commission finds that any such interference was proportionate to the goals pursued.           It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant has also alleged violation of Articles 8 (Art. 8), 9 (Art. 9) and 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.           The Commission has examined these separate complaints as they have been submitted by the applicant.   However, after considering them as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.           It follows that the remainder of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission             (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)