Information Note on the Court S Case-Law No

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120

June 2009

Beygo v. 46 Member States of The Council of Europe - 36099/06

Decision 16.6.2009 [Section V]

Article 35

Article 35-3

Ratione personae

Dispute falling entirely within internal legal system of an international organisation endowed with its own legal personality separate from that of its members: inadmissible

Article 1

Responsibility of states

Dispute falling entirely within internal legal system of an international organisation endowed with its own legal personality separate from that of its members: inadmissible

The applicant, an employee of the Council of Europe, was removed from his post by the organisation’s Secretary General. He appealed against that decision to the Administrative Tribunal of the Council of Europe. The Tribunal upheld his dismissal. The applicant argued before the Court that, on account of its composition and the fact that its members had been appointed by the executive authorities of the Council of Europe, the Administrative Tribunal had not provided the guarantees of independence and impartiality required by the Convention.

Inadmissible: In the instant case only entities of the Council of Europe, namely the Secretary General and the Administrative Tribunal, had been called on to deal with the dispute between the applicant and the organisation. The Court noted that at no point had any of the respondent States intervened, directly or indirectly, in the dispute. It saw no evidence of any act or omission on the part of those States or their authorities capable of engaging their responsibility under the Convention. The applicant could not therefore be said to be within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent States within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.

Furthermore, the applicant did not claim that, in transferring their powers to the Administrative Tribunal, the member States of the Council of Europe had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Convention by not providing an “equivalent” system of fundamental rights protection (see Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005‑VI, Information Note no.76). Accordingly, the alleged violations of the Convention could not be imputed to the respondent States: incompatible ratione personae.

See also Boivin v. 34 Member States of the Council of Europe (dec.), no. 73250/01, ECHR 2008, Information Note no. 111; Connolly v. 15 Member States of the Council of Europe, no. 73274/01, 9December 2008, unpublished; Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13645/05, 20 January 2009, ECHR 2009, Information note no. 115; and Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium (dec.), no. 10750/03, 12 May 2009, Information Note no. 119.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes