In the case of Ellies v. Germany (1),
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,
constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 162/1996/781/982. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply
to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
________________
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 20 March 1997, and composed
of the following judges:
Mr C. Russo, Chairman,
Mr R. Bernhardt,
Mr A. Spielmann,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the
Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court on 6 December 1996
by three German nationals, Mrs Ute Ellies, Miss Anke Ellies and
Mr Carsten Ellies, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1,
art. 47);
Whereas Germany has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a
complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights
("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court
by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission
under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a,
art. 48-1-d);
Having regard to the Commission's report of 16 October 1996 on
the application (no. 20335/92) lodged with the Commission by the
applicants on 6 August 1991;
Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings
in the German civil courts, to which they are parties, and alleged a
breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone
is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...
tribunal ...";
Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had
been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) and
awarding them just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) consisting
in their retrospective entitlement to application of the new
legislative provisions on industrial diseases;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Finds that
(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation
or application of the Convention, as the Court has already
established case-law on the "reasonable time" requirement in
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1); and
(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration
by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been
a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe can award the applicants just satisfaction,
having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;
2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be
considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
11 April 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Carlo RUSSO
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy