Communication No. 441/1990 Submitted by: Robert Casanovas on 27 December 1990 Alleged victim: The author State party: France Declared admissible: 7 December 1993 (forty-eighth session) Date of adoption of Views: 15 July 1994 (fifty-first session) not considered urgent and that, since no special circumstances prevailed, it would be registered in chronological order, which implied that the case would not be heard either in 1990 or in 1991. Subject matter: Delay in administrative court proceedings in respect of complaint about dismissal from public service Procedural issues: French reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol – Prior consideration of case by European Commission on Human Rights – Admissibility ratione materiae 2.3 On 23 January and again on 2 February 1990, the author notified the Court that he considered such a delay to constitute a breach of article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, accordingly, requested the inscription of his case on the court calendar, pursuant to articles 506 and 507 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. Again, he received no reply and therefore asked the Tribunal, on 13 February 1990, to acknowledge receipt of his earlier submissions. On 15 March 1990, the Court informed him that he was not being discriminated against, but that the delays encountered were the result of a backlog in the handling of earlier cases dating back to 1986; in the circumstances, it was impossible to examine the case at an earlier date. Substantive issues: Concept of “suit at law” – Fair hearing – Duration of court proceedings Articles of the Covenant: 2 (3) (a) and (b) and 14 (1) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 3 and 5 (2) (a) 1. The author of the communication is Robert Casanovas, a French citizen residing in Nancy. He claims to be the victim of a violation by France of articles 2, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), and 14, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2.4 On 21 March 1990, the author once again requested the President of the Administrative Tribunal to hear the case. The request was reiterated on 5 June 1990, but refused by the President of the Court on 11 June 1990. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author is a former employee of the fire brigade sapeurs-pompiers of Nancy. On 1 September 1987, he was appointed head of the Centre de Secours Principal of Nancy. On 20 July 1988, he was dismissed for alleged incompetence, by decision of the regional and departmental authorities. The author appealed to the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Administratif) of Nancy, which quashed the decision on 20 December 1988. Mr. Casanovas was reinstated in his post by decision of 25 January 1989. 2.5 On 20 July 1990, Mr. Casanovas appealed to the European Commission of Human Rights, invoking article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. By decision of 3 October 1990, the Commission declared his communication inadmissible, considering that the Convention does not cover procedures governing the dismissal of civil servants from employment. 2.2 The city administration, however, initiated new proceedings against the author which resulted, on 23 March 1989, in a second decision terminating his employment. The author challenged this decision before the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy on 30 March 1989. On 19 October 1989, the President of the Tribunal ordered the closure of the preliminary inquiry. By a letter of 20 November 1989, Mr. Casanovas requested the President of the Tribunal to put his case on the court agenda at as early a date as possible; this request was repeated on 28 December 1989. By a letter dated 11 January 1990, the President informed him that the matter was 2.6 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author submits that he cannot appeal to any other French judicial instance, unless and until the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy has adjudicated his case. He therefore submits that he should be deemed to have complied with the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that the State party has failed to provide him with an "effective remedy", 67