Chapter i  Fair Trial Standards: Scope of Application 33 criterion (the Pellegrin test) based on the nature of the employee’s duties and responsibilities.91 The European Court first acknowledged that in each country’s public-service sector certain posts involve responsibilities in the general interest or participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law. The State, therefore, has a legitimate interest in requiring a special bond of trust and loyalty of these servants. On the other hand, in respect of other posts which do not have this aspect of “public administration”, the Court found that there is no such interest. The Court, therefore, ruled that the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6(1) are those which are raised by public servants whose duties typify the specific activities of the public service in so far as the latter is acting as the depositary of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities. The most manifest examples of such activities are those undertaken by the armed forces and the police.92 In Vilho Eskelinen and Others v Finland, the European Court concluded that the functional criterion, as applied in practice, had not brought about a greater degree of certainty nor had it simplified the analysis of the applicability of Article 6. To the contrary, the Court took the view that the Pellegrin test had lead to anomalous results and proved to be unworkable as it had not been easy to ascertain the nature and status of the applicant’s functions.93 In order to exclude the protection of Article 6, two conditions must now be fulfilled: 1. Firstly, the State in its national law must have expressly excluded access to a court for the post or category of staff in question. 2. Secondly, the exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest. The mere fact that the applicant is in a sector or department that participates in the exercise of power conferred by public law will not in itself be decisive. This means that, for the exclusion to be justified, it will not be enough for the State to establish a “special bond of trust and loyalty” (as expressed in Pellegrin) between the civil servant and the State. To be justified on objective grounds, it will be for the State to show that the subject matter of the dispute relates to the exercise of State power or that it has called into question the special bond. Thus, there can in principle be no justification for the exclusion from the guarantees of Article 6 of ordinary labour disputes, such as those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements, on the basis of the special nature of relationship between the particular civil servant and the State in question. There will, in effect, be a presumption that Article 6 applies.94 91 Pellegrin v France [1999] ECHR 140, para 64. 92 Pellegrin v France [1999] ECHR 140, paras 65–66. 93 Vilho Eskelinen and Others v Finland [2007] ECHR 314, paras 51–52. 94 Vilho Eskelinen and Others v Finland [2007] ECHR 314, para 62.