CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 avril 1995

.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. 25369/94                       by Stephanos CHARALAMBOUS                       against Cyprus        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 5 April 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the 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 8 August 1994 by Stephanos CHARALAMBOUS against Cyprus and registered on 5 October 1994 under file No. 25369/94;        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 applicant is a Cypriot citizen and a police officer, born in 1936 and residing in the town of Nissou in Cyprus. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr. A. Demetriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, can be summarised as follows.        On 28 October 1985 eleven police officers, Messrs. AC, AD, AI, AK, GK, NK, AM, MP, AS, AS and NS, were promoted to the rank of Chief Inspector with effect from 1 March 1980.        A number of other officers, including the applicant and Messrs. OG and MK, challenged the promotions. On 3 April 1987 the Supreme Court annulled the relevant decision, on the ground that the Chief of Police had given retrospective effect to the promotions without considering the position of OG and MK who had been promoted to the same rank in April 1984.        On 27 April 1987 the Chief of Police reconsidered the issue in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court and decided to promote the same eleven officers with retrospective effect as from 1 March 1980.        A number of officers, including the applicant, challenged the promotions on a variety of grounds, but their objections were rejected by a single judge of the Supreme Court on 18 October 1989. The applicant appealed against the decision of the single judge, insofar as it upheld the promotions of AD, AM and NS, claiming that the relevant administrative decisions were inadequately reasoned and based on mistaken considerations.        On 31 May 1993 the applicant was removed from his position as Second in Command of the Rural Area of Nicosia and was transferred to another post to be in charge of the police station of Pili in Paphos. On 3 August 1993 he challenged the relevant decision before the Supreme Court, without alleging, however, that his transfer constituted discrimination on political grounds.        On 22 February 1994 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal of 18 October 1989, finding that the Chief of Police had not taken into consideration the seniority of the applicant, his 19 awards and his stance during the coup d'état of 1974.        On 7 March 1994 the Chief of Police decided to promote AD, AM and NS as from 1 March 1980. On 10 March 1994 the applicant sent a letter of protest to the President of the Republic and the Attorney General accusing the Chief of Police of failure to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court.        On 18 May 1994 the applicant challenged before the Supreme Court the decision of the Chief of Police of 7 March 1994, arguing, inter alia, that he was being subjected to "oblique persecution". No further elaboration of this allegation was provided.        The Supreme Court has not yet reached a decision on the applicant's recourses for annulment of 3 August 1993 and 18 May 1994 which are still pending.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention of persecution because of his political beliefs. He argues that it was because of his political beliefs that he was not promoted. He further submits that his recent transfer constitutes evidence of this persecution in that it amounts to a de facto demotion. Before his transfer the applicant used to be in charge of the entire rural area of Nicosia, whereas currently he is in charge of a small police station.   2.    The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in that, under Article 146 of the Constitution of Cyprus, the Supreme Court is only empowered to annul administrative decisions. The applicant has successfully challenged on two occasions the promotion of certain police officers whom the Government subsequently decided to re-promote. Even if the applicant wins his third recourse, it cannot be excluded that the Government will promote the same police officers again, as it has done on two occasions in the past.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains under Articles 9, 10 and 14 (Art. 9, 10, 14) of the Convention of persecution because of his political beliefs on the ground that he has not been promoted on several occasions and that his transfer amounts to a demotion.        The Commission notes that the applicant first raised his complaints before the domestic courts in his recourse for annulment of 18 May 1994, when he challenged the failure of the Government to promote him on the ground that it constituted "oblique persecution". This recourse is, however, still pending. The Commission, moreover, notes that the applicant did not raise any similar arguments in his pending recourse for annulment of 3 August 1993 against his transfer.        In these circumstances the Commission considers that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26) and that this part of the application must be rejected as inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant complains of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention in that he does not have an effective remedy under domestic law for the alleged violation of his rights under the Convention.        The Commission notes that the Supreme Court of Cyprus is competent under domestic law to quash the decisions which allegedly discriminate against the applicant. It also notes that the applicant has raised his complaints before the Supreme Court in one of the two recourses he has lodged which are still pending.        In these circumstances and assuming that the applicant has an arguable claim under Articles 9, 10 and 14 (Art. 9, 10, 14) of the Convention, the Commission considers that the case before it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention. As a result this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded 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 Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber          (K. ROGGE)                              (H. DANELIUS)