AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 13114/87
                      by H.
                      against the Netherlands


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 13 April 1989, the following members being present:

              MM. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President
                  F. ERMACORA
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY
             Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

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

        Having regard to the application introduced on 6 April 1987 by
H. against the Netherlands and registered on 4 August 1987 under file
No. 13114/87;

        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 Dutch citizen, born in 1947 and presently
residing on the island of Curaçao in the Netherlands Antilles.  In
the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr.  Errol
J. Maduro, a lawyer practising on the island of Curaçao.

        The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as
follows:

        Since 1 June 1964 the applicant has been in the civil
service.  On 1 December 1978 he finished his studies of physiotherapy
at the University of Colombia.  On 14 December 1978 he was promoted to
clerk.

        It appears that, on the basis of his Colombian university
degree, the applicant brought an action for promotion as from 1
December 1979 to deputy officer, which is a particular grade in
the civil service.  On 8 October 1979 the Civil Servants Court
in the Netherlands Antilles (Gerecht in Ambtenarenzaken in de
Nederlandse Antillen) rejected the applicant's action, holding that
the applicant's degree should first be evaluated.

        By letter of 19 June 1985 the applicant requested the Governor
of the Netherlands Antilles to promote him to a grade in accordance
with his university degree.

        On 22 August 1985 the applicant brought an action, inter alia
for promotion, against the Governor before the Civil Servants Court
because he had not received an answer to his letter nor had he been
promoted.  He submitted, inter alia, that those who had a degree from
the University of the Netherlands Antilles were appointed as or
promoted to deputy officer and that the failure to do so in his case
was in violation of the principle of equality.

        In its decision of 5 November 1985 the Court declared the
applicant's claim for promotion inadmissible, insofar as he claimed
promotion as from 14 December 1979 because the Court had already
rejected a similar claim on 8 October 1979, and insofar as he claimed
promotion as from 1 July 1985 because, inter alia, it could not yet be
assumed that the Governor had refused this.

        The applicant appealed to the Civil Servants Council of Appeal
(Raad van Beroep in Ambtenarenzaken).  By decision of 12 March 1986
the Council of Appeal rejected the appeal.

        On 10 June 1986 the applicant requested the Council of Appeal
to revise its decision.  He submitted that one of the members of the
Council of Appeal had been nominated Deputy Governor on 1 March 1986
and that the Governor had been the defendant in his case.  He invoked
Article 6 of the Convention.

        In its decision of 16 October 1986 the Council of Appeal
rejected the request for a revision of its decision.  It considered
that the decision, pronounced on 12 March 1986, was taken in
chambers on 12 February 1986 and that the member of the Council of
Appeal concerned did not belong to the administration at that time.

        On 1 December 1986 the applicant again brought an action for
promotion against the Governor before the Civil Servants Court.
In its decision of 14 May 1987 the Court quashed the refusal
of the Governor to promote the applicant because it found an
evaluation of applicant's studies, finished on 19 February 1987,
to be inadequate.

        On 9 June 1987, the Governor appealed to the Civil Servants
Council of Appeal.  On 4 September 1987 the Council held a hearing
during which the applicant challenged one of the members of the
Council of Appeal because, under national law, only persons with the
Dutch nationality and residing in the Netherlands Antilles could be
nominated to the Council.  At the time of the hearing, the member of
the Council concerned resided in Aruba, this no longer being a part of
the Netherlands Antilles.

        By interlocutory decision of 16 September 1987 the Council of
Appeal rejected the challenge.  The member of the Council, who was
challenged by the applicant, participated in this decision.

        In its decision of 13 November 1987 the Council of Appeal
quashed the decision of the Civil Servants Court of 14 May
1987 and declared the applicant's original action ill-founded.

        By letters of 24 July 1987 and 18 September 1987 the applicant
requested the President of the Civil Servants Council of Appeal
for the records of the hearings held in 1986 in his case,
because he intended to send these records to the European Commission
of Human Rights.  By letter of 18 September 1987 the President refused
this request.

        On 8 March 1988 the applicant instituted summary proceedings
requesting the records.  By decision of 25 March 1988 the Court in
First Instance of the Netherlands Antilles (Het Gerecht in Eerste
Aanleg van de Nederlandse Antillen) rejected the request.  It held,
inter alia, that, contrary to the requirements of national law, no
records of the proceedings had been made but that, as the registrar
who was present at the hearings concerned had died, it was impossible
to make them now.  It noted that the registrar's notes had been made
available to the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant complains that his case was not dealt with by an
independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention.  He brought an action against the Governor
of the Netherlands Antilles.  At the moment the decision by the
Council of Appeal was pronounced one of the members of this Council
was deputy Governor.

        The applicant submits that in the present case a civil right
is involved since he had requested equal treatment, i.e. to have the
same position as other civil servants with a university degree.

2.      The applicant complains that no records were made of the
hearings held in his case by the Civil Servants Council of Appeal in
1986.  He submits that this is contrary to the requirements of
publicity.  He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

3.      The applicant complains that the member of the Council of
Appeal who was challenged by the applicant, was one of the members of
the Council of Appeal participating in the decision on the challenge.
He submits that this decision was not taken by an independent and
impartial tribunal.  He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

        The applicant has complained that his case was not heard by an
independent and impartial tribunal, that no records were made of the
hearings held in his case by the Civil Servants Council of Appeal in
1986, and that the member of the Council of Appeal who was challenged
by him, was one of the members who participated in the decision on the
challenge.  He has invoked Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

        The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
provides as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or
of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to
a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Judgment shall be pronounced publicly...".

        However, the Commission notes that the proceedings of which
the applicant complains concern his access to a particular grade in
the civil service.

        The Commission recalls its constant case-law, according to
which litigation concerning access to, or dismissal from civil service
falls outside the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention (see, for example, No. 7374/76, Dec. 8.3.1976, D.R. 5 p.
157 and No. 9248/81, Dec. 10.10.1983, D.R. 34 p. 78).

        It follows that this application is incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of 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        Acting President of the Commission




    (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (S. TRECHSEL)