CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 octobre 1992

.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. 19098/91                       by H.B.                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER              Mr.    M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 9 September 1991 by H.B. against Austria and registered on 18 November 1991 under file No. 19098/91;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   19098/91                          - 2 -   THE FACTS                The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1921 and living in Salzburg.   He is represented by Messrs. Herbert Pfzlanzl and Ägidius Horvatits, lawyers practising in Salzburg.         The applicant complains of the refusal by the Austrian authorities to enter in his passport a title granted to him honoris causa by a foreign university.         On 7 June 1989 the Federal Ministry for Science and Research (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung) granted the applicant the authorisation to call himself "Doctor en administración de empresas".   This academic title had been granted to the applicant on 16 March 1979 by the Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala City as an honorary degree.         It is stated in the Federal Ministry's decision that according to available information the university in question was renowned, and conferred degrees more or less under the same conditions as domestic universities.         The applicant's request to have his degree entered before his name in his passport was however rejected by the competent authorities on the ground that under Section 39 of the University Act (Allgemeines Hochschul-Studiengesetz) honorary degrees obtained abroad could be entered in the passport only if the Federal Ministry for Science and Research had authorised such entry.   While the applicant had been authorised by this Ministry to call himself "Doctor en administracion de empresas" or to use the abbreviation   "Dr. h.c." he had not been authorised to have this degree entered in his passport.         The applicant's ultimate recourse to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) was not admitted for decision.   In an order of 25 February 1991 this Court stated that the constitutional complaint raised issues which had already previously been decided in the Court's jurisprudence and did not disclose any appearance of a violation of constitutional rights.   Furthermore the Court added that the matter fell within the competence of the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs- gerichtshof).   COMPLAINTS         The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, arguing that the Constitutional Court's order does not deal with his particular complaints which he considers to be different from those dealt with in the previous jurisprudence referred to by the Constitutional Court.   He points out that in the previous jurisprudence the Constitutional Court only dealt with the question whether or not it was justified that the Austrian Administration distinguished between academic degrees granted as a result of university studies as compared with titles granted honoris causa.   His complaint concerned however the problem that the Austrian Administration made a distinction between honorary degrees obtained abroad and honorary degrees obtained in Austria.          As this issue was not especially dealt with in the Constitutional Court's decision given in his case, he considers that Article 6 of the Convention was violated.                                      - 3 -                        19098/91   THE LAW         The applicant invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which, in its relevant part, guarantees everyone "a fair and public hearing" in respect of the "determination of two civil rights and obligations..."   Even assuming that proceedings before a Constitutional Court can in principle be decisive for civil rights and obligations, the Commission notes that the applicant is not forbidden to use his honorary degree publicly.   On the other hand an honorary degree does not automatically form part of one's name and the question of whether or not a person may add to his name an honorary degree in a public document is of public concern and not a matter related to private law. The constitutional court proceedings therefore did not relate to the determination of a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   In addition it has to be observed that a right to have a foreign honorary degree entered in one's passport is not as such guaranteed by the Convention either.   It follows that the application has to be rejected as being incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber           (M. de SALVIA)                          (J.A. FROWEIN)