AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16675/90
by B. and S.
against the Federal Republic of Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 8 November 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 23 November 1987
by B. and S. against the Federal and registered on 7 July 1990 under
file No. 16675/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Ms. B., is a British citizen,
born in 1929 in B., Romania, and living in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The
second applicant, Mr. S. is an Austrian citizen, born in 1933
and living in V. He represents the first applicant.
Both applicants are the children and heirs of Bela Szabo, an
Austrian citizen of Jewish origin who raised in March 1958 a claim for
compensation for wine, pigs and various foodstuffs which had been
confiscated in 1944 in Hungary by agents of the Nazi regime. The
claim was brought under the Federal Restitution Act (Bundesrück-
erstattungsgesetz).
The claim was first dealt with by the Compensation Board
(Wiedergutmachungsamt) of Berlin and subsequently by the Regional
Court (Landgericht) of Berlin, the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) of
Berlin and the Supreme Restitution Court which on 8 December 1977
referred the case back to the Compensation Board.
After the applicants' father had died in 1978, the applicants
pursued the proceedings. On 2 May 1985, the Regional Court rejected
the applicants' claim, but on 23 October 1985, the Court of Appeal
referred parts of the case back to the Regional Court, while rejecting
other parts of the applicants' claim. On 20 May 1987, the Supreme
Restitution Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that
decision.
It appears that those parts of the case which were referred
back to the Regional Court are still pending before that Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants mainly complain of the length of the
proceedings and invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. They also
argue that certain amendments to the restitution legislation are
disadvantageous for them and violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicants complain of the length of certain court
proceedings regarding compensation under the Federal Restitution Act.
They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention which provides for a
court determination within a reasonable time of disputes concerning
civil rights and obligations.
THE LAW
The Commission has consistently held that Article 6 (Art. 6)
is not applicable to proceedings regarding compensation to victims of
Nazi persecution under the special legislation enacted for that
purpose in the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 10612/83, Dec.
10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 276; No. 10865/84, Dec. 12.5.86). As regards
claims based on the deprivation of specific property under the Federal
Restitution Act, the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) has been left
open in the Commission's previous case-law (Nos. 5573/72 and
5670/72, Dec. 16.7.76, D.R. 7 p. 8). However, in the present case,
which concerns compensation for property of which the applicants'
father was allegedly deprived in 1944 and which could no longer be
recuperated, the Commission considers that the case-law relating to
other claims for compensation for Nazi persecution should be applied
mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) is not applicable
to the proceedings of which the applicants complain.
The Commission is not called upon to decide if Article 6
(Art. 6) would be applicable if a claim under the Act in question
concerned restitution of existing property in the Federal Republic of
Germany.
Furthermore, insofar as the applicants' complain of
legislative amendments the Commission finds no basis for considering
that the applicants were thereby deprived of any property rights
contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
It follows that the application has to be rejected in
accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention
partly as being incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae and
partly as being manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy