CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31 June 2001 Azinas v. Cyprus (dec.) - 56679/00 Decision 19.6.2001 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Dismissal from civil service and consequent loss of retirement benefits: admissible Until 1982, the applicant was Governor of the Department of Co-operative Development of the Public Service. In April 1981, he was convicted of stealing, breach of trust and abuse of authority, and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. In October 1981, his appeals against conviction and sentence were rejected by the Supreme Court. In July 1982, the Public Service Commission instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and decided to dismiss him on the ground of his conviction. His dismissal resulted in the loss of his retirement benefits, including his pension, as from the date of his conviction. His appeal against the decision of dismissal was rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that it could not review the severity of the sentence imposed by a disciplinary body, unless it exceeded the limits of its margin of appreciation. In 1991, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law; the proceedings are still pending. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Although the applicant was no longer a civil servant after 1982, the proceedings before the Supreme Court concerned exclusively his dismissal and not the consecutive forfeiture of his pension rights. Therefore, Article 6 § 1 was not applicable: incompatible ratione materiae . Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol N° 1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes