COUNCIL OF EUROPE  
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS  

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE “ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 6798/71 by P.H. against the United Kingdom  

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 22 March 1972, the following members being present:  
SORENSEN, President  
SUSTERHENN  
SPERDUTI  
DELAHAYE  
B. GINDAL  
SUSUTTIL  
DAVER  
OPSAHT  
MANGAN  
A. B. McWULTY, Secretary to the Commission  

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;  
Having regard to the application introduced on 24 December 1970 by P.H. against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 February 1971 under file No. 6798/71;  
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 45, 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;  
Having deliberated,  

Decides as follows:  

**FACTS**  

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarized as follows: The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in Colne, Lancashire in 1937 and resident there at the present time. From the applicant's statements and the documents submitted by him, it appears that from 1962 until 1967 he was a teacher of physics at St. Bede's Grammar School, Bradford, and that from 1963 onwards he held the position of Senior Physics Master. After a dispute with another master on 6 October 1967, during the course of which the applicant considered himself to have been defamed, he withdrew from the school and refused to return unless the Headmaster supported him. The applicant fell ill shortly afterwards and when he recovered he was informed by the Chairman of the School Governors that he would be dismissed from his post unless he returned. He offered to return but was suspended. He was then informed that the Board of Governors would meet on 19 December 1967 to discuss the question of his dismissal but he refused to participate in the proceedings on the ground that he had received no proper explanation of the complaints against him, whereas he had clearly set out his own case for the other side to examine in advance.  

At the meeting on 19 December 1967 the Board of Governors voted to dismiss the applicant who then appealed to a Committee of the City Council. This Committee had the power to withhold consent to the dismissal but at a session held on 18 January 1968 at which the applicant was present, the Committee confirmed the dismissal which took effect on 30 April 1968. The applicant complains that the Committee which met on 18 January 1968 was biased, or else possessed inside knowledge, in that it decided against him without even requiring argument from the other side. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses he wanted to call. The Committee's decision of 18 January was confirmed by the full City Council on 22 February. The applicant brought an action in the Bradford County Court for the return of some teaching notes and another action for wrongful dismissal. Both failed. He brought a further action, in the same court, claiming that the Committee session held on 18 January had contravened the rules of natural justice. This action succeeded on 24 February 1969 on the ground that three School Governors had been members of the Committee. The judge postponed his decision on the amount of damages to be awarded.  

The City Council appealed against the County Court's decision to the Court of Appeal and a hearing was scheduled for October 1969. The applicant again became ill and requested postponement which he obtained until March 1970. When the applicant inquired, in April 1970, as to the state of the proceedings he found that the Court of Appeal had heard the appeal and decided it against him on 10 March 1970. He was not present or represented at the hearing. It appears from the transcript of the Court of Appeal hearing that the applicant had produced a medical certificate to delay the hearing in November 1969. This was followed by correspondence and requests for a further medical certificate. When no further medical certificate was received the case eventually came to court without the applicant's presence. The applicant claims that he was under medical treatment at the relevant time, that he had invited the court to communicate directly with his doctor and that a City Council lawyer had been told that he had gone into hospital on 9 March. On 7 April 1970 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 7 July 1970 he applied to the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords itself for leave to appeal but was again refused. The applicant claims that it was only on this day, 7 July 1970, that he was first able to see a copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment although he had tried to obtain a copy previously. The applicant complains of his dismissal, of the session on 18 January 1968 which he says was biased and not in conformity with the rules of natural justice and of the decision of the Court of Appeal which resulted from a hearing he did not attend. He alleges violation of Arts. 7 and 6 of the Convention.  

**LAW**  

I. The applicant alleged a violation of Art. 3 of the Convention apparently by reason of the conduct of the school authorities. However, on the facts as he has presented them, there is no evidence whatsoever of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment. An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in Art. 3. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27 (2) of the Convention.  

II. The applicant has complained that he was wrongfully dismissed by the governors of the school from his post as senior physics master at St. Bede's Grammar School, Bradford. He has also stated that, at the time of his dismissal, his teaching notes were retained by the school against his wishes. However, under Art. 26 of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognized rules of international law. In the present case the applicant brought an action in the Bradford County Court for the return of the teaching notes and another action for wrongful dismissal. He says little about these actions, both of which were unsuccessful, but the applicant has not shown that he appealed to the Court of Appeal against either of the two decisions, and has, therefore, to this extent, not exhausted the remedies available to him under English law. Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognized rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal. It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his complaints about his dismissal and about the failure to return his teaching notes must in this respect be rejected under Art. 27 (3) of the Convention.  

III. The applicant has also complained that the Committee of the City Council, which on 18 January 1968 confirmed his dismissal by the Board of Governors, failed to observe the rules of natural justice. He brought another action on this ground in the Bradford County Court and this action succeeded on 24 February 1969. The City Council then appealed to the Court of Appeal and the judgment was reversed on 10 March 1970. He also complains that the Court of Appeal's decision was taken without his being present and that he therefore did not receive a fair hearing. The Commission has considered whether this complaint raises an issue under Art. 6 (1) and has first examined the question whether this series of proceedings comes within the meaning of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention which provides for a fair hearing to anyone in the “determination of ... civil rights and obligations." The applicant's unsuccessful action in the Bradford County Court mentioned above was an action for wrongful dismissal and appears to have been the determination of a civil right. But the second County Court action of 24 February 1969 appears to have concerned an administrative matter rather than a civil right. Nevertheless, on the assumption that these proceedings can be considered as falling within Art. 6 (1), it is true that the applicant was not present at the hearing before the Court of Appeal but he has not given a convincing reason for being unable to attend. It is clear that the case was postponed for some time at his request and he produced no medical certificate to cause the postponement to be continued. He has produced no certificate or other evidence to the Commission. The Court of Appeal took the view that the applicant was able but unwilling to attend the hearing and the applicant has not shown that, in the circumstances of the case, such a view was not justified. An examination of this complaint, as it has been submitted, does not therefore disclose any appearance of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in Art. 6. The applicant's complaint that he did not have a fair hearing is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27 (2) of the Convention.  

For these reasons,  
the Commission  
Secretary to the Commission  
President of the Commission  
(A. B. McWULTY)  
(M. SORENSEN)