CH/02/12470 “2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: a. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his Defence; c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; …” 94. Accordingly, in order for Article 6 of the Convention to be applicable, the proceedings complained of must either concern the determination of a civil right or obligation, or the determination of a criminal charge. (a) Existence of a “civil right” 95. The Chamber notes that the European Court has held that Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable to proceedings concerning the employment, careers, and dismissal from employment where an applicant has exercised “powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities” (Eur. Court HR, Pellegrin v. France, judgement of 8 December 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-VIII, paragraph 66). The Pellegrin decision makes it clear that military officers fall within this category: “The Court therefore rules that the only disputes excluded from the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention are those which are raised by public servants whose duties typify the specific activities of the public service in so far as the latter is acting as the depository of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities. A manifest example of such activities is provided by the armed forces and the police.” (Pellegrin, paragraph 66, emphasis added). 96. In the present case, the applicant was dismissed as the Assistant Minister of Defence and discharged as a high-ranking military officer. While the Chamber does not wholly embrace the approach of the European Court taken in Pellegrin, in the case at hand, at least, it concludes, that disputes regarding the discharge of senior military officers and dismissal of an Assistant Minister, such as the applicant, fall outside the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention. Therefore, the Chamber finds that the dispute in the present case does not concern the determination of a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. (b) The existence of a “criminal charge” 97. Alternatively, Article 6 of the Convention may still apply if the removal of the applicant from office and his exclusion from the elections constitute sanctions that were imposed as a consequence of a “criminal charge”. The Federation of BiH argues that this leg of Article 6 of the Convention cannot be applicable to the applicant’s case, because no criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Indeed, there is no doubt that the applicant was not subjected to any criminal proceedings as classified under the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the Federation of BiH. The Chamber notes, however, that the notion of “criminal charge” has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, which may include disciplinary proceedings (Eur. Court HR, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80). Although disciplinary proceedings as such cannot generally be characterised as "criminal", the European Court has stated that this general rule might not apply in certain specific cases (see Eur. Court HR, Engel and Others v. The Netherlands, judgement of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-36, paragraphs 80-85). 16