Case no 13348/87
The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1946. He is a teacher by profession and is resident at Delsbo, Sweden. The applicant submits that he made an agreement on 16 September 1983 with the Director of Education (skoldirektör) of the municipality of Umeå that he be employed by the municipality to carry out a project with the aim of theoretically and practically examining the possibilities of using a certain pedagogical method in the comprehensive school (Waldorfpedagogik). The applicant worked on the project for a few months in 1984 and was remunerated by the municipality, but by a decision of the School Board (skolstyrelsen) of 30 January 1985 the project was abandoned. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Sundsvall, which rejected the appeal, and to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which on 28 January 1987 refused leave to appeal. (...)
2. The applicant also complains of discrimination on account of his political, philosophical and scientific qualifications and on account of his membership in a certain trade union. He invokes Articles 9 (Art. 9), 10 (Art. 10) and 11 (Art. 11) in conjunction with Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention. The Commission recalls that although the Convention does not guarantee a right of recruitment to the public service, it does not follow that in other respects civil servants fall outside the scope of the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Glasenapp and Kosiek judgments of 28 August 1986, Series A No. 104, p. 26, para. 49-50 and Series A No.105, p. 20, para. 35-36). The applicant accordingly has a right to enjoy the rights and freedoms afforded to him by the Convention "without discrimination on any ground". The Commission considers, however, that the applicant has not substantiated his allegation that he has been subjected to discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of his rights under Articles 9 (Art. 9), 10 (Art. 10) and 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.