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

                 MM  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     F. ERMACORA
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G.JÖRUNDSSON
                     G. TENEKIDES
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     B. KIERNAN
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     J. CAMPINOS
                 Mrs G.H. THUNE
                 Sir Basil HALL
                 Mr  F. MARTINEZ

         Mr H.C. KRÜGER, 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 20 December 1985 by
C.D. against the United Kingdom and Spain and registered on 14
February 1986 under file No. 11980/86;

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

The applicant is a Spanish citizen, born in 1934 and living in London.
She is represented by Mr J. Goldsmith, solicitor, of the Citizens
Advice Bureau.

It follows from her statements and the documents submitted by her that
the applicant, who has been living in England since 1960, first worked
for some years with the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) as a
teacher of Spanish.  In January 1975, at the invitation of the
Education Attaché of the Spanish Embassy, she began to teach Spanish
children for ten hours a week, while continuing to work for the ILEA.
In June 1976 the applicant gave up working for the ILEA and
thereafter, until the end of the summer term of 1982, she taught
Spanish children exclusively.  She was initially employed by the
Embassy under an oral contract.

By a letter dated 15 October 1976 from the director of the personnel
department of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, the
applicant was appointed a temporary teacher at one of the schools set
up in England by the Board of Education for Spanish Emigrants.  It was
an express condition of the applicant taking up that post that she
should swear adherence to the principles of the Spanish National
Movement and other fundamental laws of the State of Spain.  This she
did on 1 November 1976.

From 1977 until the end of the summer term of 1982 the applicant's
place of employment was a school in Portobello Road, London.

By a document issued by the Spanish Ministry of Education,
dated 13 June 1979, the applicant was appointed a "provisional title
holder" for three years to carry out her duties at the Portobello Road
School. With effect from 13 June 1982 the applicant was granted
"official duty status" until 31 August 1982.

By a notice dated 8 July 1982 the applicant was informed that her
service post in the United Kingdom was not to be extended beyond
31 August 1982 and that she should join a post which had been allotted
to her in Spain for the following term.

On 1 September 1982 the applicant, who did not want to return to
Spain, nevertheless reported at her new posting, which was in
Barcelona, because her Spanish permit to work abroad had expired and
because she wished to protect her status as a Spanish civil servant.
In Spain she immediately applied for, and was granted, three months'
leave of absence.  She thereupon returned to England and remained
there until November.  She then went back to Spain where, from
1 November 1982 to 31 August 1983, she taught at Barcelona.
On 1 September 1983 the applicant was posted to Getafe, near Madrid.
On 15 September she was granted indefinite leave of absence and she
again returned to England.

While she had been working under the oral contract down to
31 October 1976 the applicant was remunerated by the Spanish Ministry
of Labour. For the period between 1 November 1976 and 31 August 1982
the applicant's basic salary was paid by the Spanish Ministry of
Education, but she also received a supplementary remuneration from the
Spanish Ministry of Labour in consideration of her working outside
Spain.

In 1982, when her service post in the United Kingdom was not extended,
the applicant brought an action before the Industrial Tribunal
against, firstly, the Junta de Promoción Educativa de Los Emigrantes
and, secondly, the State of Spain, complaining of unfair dismissal.

On 4 January 1984 the Industrial Tribunal decided that it had
jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

On 4 July 1985, however, the application was dismissed on the ground
that the right not to be unfairly dismissed was, under the Employment
Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, conferred on "every employee",
while the applicant was considered to be a Spanish civil servant.  The
Tribunal found, in the light of the evidence obtained, that, under
Spanish law, a civil servant - whether temporary or established - was
the holder of an office of profit and that the relationship between
the office holder and the State of Spain was not, and could not be,
governed by contract.  The oral contract under which the applicant had
been employed down to 31 October 1976 was, according to the findings
of the English tribunal, superseded by the applicant's appointment to
her teaching post on becoming a civil servant on 1 November 1976.
Thereafter she was employed solely in her capacity as the holder of an
office of profit and not under a contract of employment.

The applicant submits that she did not appeal from the Industrial
Tribunal's decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal as an appeal is
possible only on a point of law while the Industrial Tribunal founded
its decision of 16 July 1985 on a finding of fact.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention that the civil rights which she enjoyed under the contract
of employment prior to 1 November 1976 should have been removed by her
designation as a civil servant after that date, in consequence of the
Industrial Tribunal's decision.  She argues that despite her
designation as a civil servant she has civil rights.  A mere
designation of an employee as a civil servant should not, without
more, remove civil rights from that employee.

THE LAW

1. Complaint against the United Kingdom

The applicant has complained that by becoming a civil servant she was
deprived, in consequence of the English Industrial Tribunal's decision
of 16 July 1985, of the civil rights she enjoyed previously under her
contract of employment.

With regard to the judicial decision of which the applicant complains,
the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (art. 19)
of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the
obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.  In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant
jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications
No. 458/59, Yearbook 3, pp. 222, 236 and No. 1140/61, Collection of
Decisions, 8, pp. 57, 62).

It is true that in this case the applicant also complains that, by the
decision of the Tribunal, she was deprived of civil rights.  In this
connection she alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention.

However, this provision only contains procedural guarantees, mainly
the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal.  The applicant has not even alleged that the Industrial
Tribunal denied her a fair hearing.  The fact that the Tribunal denied
the right claimed by the applicant does not in itself violate any
right under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) nor any other provision of
the Convention.

It follows that to this extent the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of
the Convention.

2. Complaint against Spain

Insofar as the application is directed against Spain the Commission
observes that this High Contracting State is in no way responsible for
decisions given by an English Tribunal.

It follows that to this extent the application is incompatible ratione
personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)