The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 December 1986, the following members being present:

                     MM.  C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                          G. SPERDUTI
                          F. ERMACORA
                          G. JÖRUNDSSON
                          B. KIERNAN
                          A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                          J. C. SOYER
                          H. G. SCHERMERS
                          H. DANELIUS
                          G. BATLINER
                      Mrs G. H. THUNE
                      Mr. F. MARTINEZ

                      Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to
                                      the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 3 March 1985 by A.M.A. D.
against the Netherlands and registered on 28 March 1985 under file No.

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:


The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may
be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1935 and a teacher by
profession.  At present, he resides at The Hague.

In 1981, the applicant, who was then teaching at a municipal school at
The Hague developed personal friendships with one of his former female
pupils, then 16 years old, and still attending the applicant's school,
and with the girl's mother.  In the course of 1982 he apparently
developed a closer relationship with the girl.

It appears that in May 1982 the girl came to stay for a few days with
the applicant.  Thereupon, the applicant was requested by the deputy
director of his school to put an end to this situation and informed
that the girl's mother had lodged a complaint with the Education
Authorities (Onderwijsinspectie).

However, the mother subsequently denied having lodged such a
complaint, but apparently the deputy director nevertheless asked the
applicant to "limit his hospitality".

On 3 June 1982, the girl came to the applicant's house in an
apparently upset state, after having been told by her mother and
grandmother to choose between them and the applicant.  The girl then
stayed with the applicant.

On 5 June 1982, the applicant informed the police (kinderpolitie) that
he was not hiding the girl, and on 10 June 1982 he informed the school
authorities that he was ill.

It appears that the girl's mother had meanwhile contacted the police
of her municipality, Rijswijk, on or about 4 June 1982 asking them to
help her end the relationship between the applicant and her daughter
and to conduct a criminal investigation of the case.  For this
purpose, she handed the private correspondence of her daughter and the
applicant to the police.  As no criminal charges could be brought
against the applicant the police, with the permission of the mother,
then put the correspondence at the disposal of the Education
authorities on 10 June 1982, since they apparently considered that the
problems of the mother could be solved if disciplinary measures would
be taken against the applicant.

On 14 June 1982, the applicant was suspended by the school authorities
because of his relationship with the girl, and on 25 June 1982 he was
informed by the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague of the intention to
dismiss him, as it appeared from the documents made available by the
Rijswijk police that the applicant had failed to respect his duties as
a teacher.

The girl stopped attending the applicant's school on 15 June 1982 and
was registered at another school as of 1 August 1982.

It also appears that since 1978 the applicant had introduced several
appeals to the Mayor and Aldermen of The Hague against decisions by
the school authorities not to give their approval to certain penalties
ordered by the applicant.  After a fourth appeal had been rejected,
the applicant had ventilated his opinion on school punishment in a
newspaper interview on 5 June 1982.

On 7 June 1982, the applicant's action had been censured during a
meeting of his colleagues and he had been warned by the Mayor and
Aldermen about his refusal to accept their views on school discipline.

The applicant introduced an appeal against his suspension with the
Civil Servants Court (Ambtenarengerecht) at The Hague on 19 June 1982.
He further initiated summary proceedings (kort geding) before the
President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The
Hague, claiming that his correspondence be returned and not be used in
the proceedings concerning his suspension.  The applicant invoked
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

On 30 August 1982, the President decided that the applicant's request
concerned a complaint about the act of an administrative organ, which
fell within the exclusive competence of the Civil Servants Court.  The
applicant's request was therefore declared inadmissible.

On 6 September 1982, the Civil Servants Court rejected the applicant's
appeal against his suspension.  The Court considered, inter alia, that
since the authorities had taken the applicant's correspondence into
account in their decision they had correctly submitted these documents
to the Court, as this could not be said to be contrary to the public

By letter of 6 October 1982, the Mayor and Aldermen informed the
applicant that he was dismissed as of 1 November 1982.

On 2 November 1982, the applicant appealed against his dismissal to
the Civil Servants Court.  The applicant claimed, inter alia, that the
authorities had taken his, illegally obtained, correspondence into
account when deciding on his dismissal.

On 6 July 1983, the Court declared the applicant's appeal well-founded
and the dismissal null and void.  According to the Court, the
applicant could not be said to have failed to respect his duties as a
teacher because of his relationship with a pupil.

The Mayor and Aldermen, thereupon, appealed against this decision to
the Central Appeals Board (Centrale Raad van Beroep). In her
submissions to the Appeals Board, the applicant's representative
stated, inter alia that it was very sad that the municipality had used
the applicant's private correspondence to demonstrate that he had
failed in his duties.  In his oral submissions to the Appeals Board,
the applicant himself referred to the social impropriety
(maatschappelijke onbetamelijkheid) of the municipality's use of his
correspondence in order to justify his dismissal.

On 25 October 1984, the Appeals Board quashed the decision of the
Civil Servants Court and declared the applicant's initial appeal
against his dismissal ill-founded.  The Board, without making a
finding on the use of the correspondence by the authorities, held that
the applicant had in fact failed to respect his duties as a teacher.

Meanwhile, on 27 September 1982 the applicant and the girl had
introduced a complaint with the National Ombudsman about the seizure
of their correspondence by the Rijswijk police.

On 26 November 1984, the Ombudsman concluded that the police, by
seizing the applicant's correspondence and putting it at the disposal
of the Education authorities, had interfered with the rights of both
the applicant and the girl under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention
in an unjustified way.

Thereupon, the applicant introduced a civil action for damages against
the municipalities of The Hague and Rijswijk with the Regional Court
of The Hague on 6 March 1985.  It appears that these proceedings are
still pending.

Finally, it appears that the applicant has been unemployed since his
dismissal and that this has seriously affected his health and
financial situation.


The applicant complains that the municipality of The Hague obtained
and used his correspondence in a way which violated his rights under
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and which resulted in his
dismissal.  In addition, he complains that this provision was also
violated because his private relationship with a pupil was taken as
the ground for his dismissal.  He claims that the interference with
his right to respect for his private life and his correspondence could
not be justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (Art. 8) of
the Convention.

The applicant further complains that he did not have a fair trial
before the Central Appeals Board, inter alia since this court did not
take the infringement of his rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention into consideration, and based itself on facts which
appeared from his correspondence.  He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of
the Convention in this respect.


1.      The applicant has complained that he did not have a fair trial
in the proceedings concerning his dismissal and he has invoked
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which reads, inter alia:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public

However, the Commission observes that no criminal proceedings were
instituted against the applicant.  Furthermore, the Commission finds
that the dispute arising out of his dismissal does not involve civil
rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6, para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention as the decision taken has deprived him of
the quality of public teacher, assigned to the institutions belonging
to the State.

In this respect, the Commission holds the view that if, as in the
present case, a State, in the exercise of the functions it assumes in
the area of education, decides to regulate it as a public service, the
persons selected to exercise such activity have no civil right to
continue to occupy a post in this field.

It follows that the application, in this respect, is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention (cf. Dec.  No. 8686/79, 10.10.80, D.R. 21 p. 208 ff).

2.      The applicant has further complained that he was dismissed
because of a private relationship and that his correspondence was
seized and used against him.  He claims that this amounted to a
violation of his rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention,
which reads, inter alia:

"1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority with the
exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law
and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for
the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission notes that the applicant's correspondence was handed
over to the police by the girl's mother.  Subsequently, the police put
this correspondece at the disposal of the school authorities, who in
turn submitted it as evidence to the courts deciding on the
applicant's appeal against his dismissal.

With regard to the seizure and forwarding of the correspondence by the
police, the Commission observes that civil proceedings for damages
against the authorities responsible for the police action are still
pending before the Dutch courts.  In this respect, therefore, the
applicant cannot be said to have exhausted the domestic remedies at
his disposal, as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,
and this part of the application must therefore be rejected under
Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

Insofar as the applicant's complaints under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention concern the use of his private correspondence by the
courts, the Commission notes that the proceedings at issue concerned
the applicant's appeal against his dismissal.

The Commission finds that there was nothing under the Convention to
prevent the domestic courts from using all evidence brought before
them, including the applicant's private correspondence. In this
respect, the Commission notes that it is an inherent feature of court
proceedings in general that confidential documents may be examined.
The courts thus cannot be said to have shown a lack of respect for any
of the applicant's rights under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the

It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission


Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the

(J. RAYMOND)                                 (C.A. NØRGAARD)