Application No. 15116/89
by H.F.
against the Federal Republic of Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 16 May 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
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
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 4 April 1989
by H.F. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered
on 15 June 1989 under file No. 15116/89;
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 facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
parties, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant, born in 1932, is a German national and resident
in Berlin. In 1960 she married in London an Australian national of
Italian origin.
In May 1978 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings before
the Charlottenburg District Court (Amtsgericht). The proceedings also
covered the questions of the right to custody over the spouses' two
sons (however, the elder son attained his majority in October 1979; the
younger son in November 1982), and the splitting of their pension
rights (Versorgungsausgleich). In these proceedings the applicant was
represented by counsel.
Following various hearings and the taking of expert evidence
concerning the applicant's fitness to work, questions of British
matrimonial law, and the value of the defendant's assets and income,
the proceedings are still pending at first instance before the
Charlottenburg District Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention about the length of the proceedings before the
Charlottenburg District Court. She also invoked Article 3 of the
Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 4 April 1989 and registered
on 15 June 1989.
On 13 October 1989 the Commission decided to invite the
respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of
Procedure, to submit written observations on the admissibility and
merits of the application.
The Government's observations, according to which the
applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the
length of her divorce proceedings were well-founded, were submitted
after an extension of the time-limit on 26 January 1990.
By letter of 23 March 1990 the Agent of the respondent
Government informed the Commission that the parties had come
to the following agreement.
"1. Das Land Berlin zahlt der Beschwerdeführerin einen Betrag von 12.000 DM (zwölftausend Deutsche Mark). 2. Die Beschwerdeführerin erklärt, daß damit alle jetzigen und künftigen Ansprüche wegen der Dauer des Verfahrens über die Scheidung von ihrem Ehemann [...] und über die Scheidungs- folgen vor dem Amtsgericht Charlottenburg in Berlin einschließlich der in diesem Zusammenhang entstandenen Kosten vor nationalen Gerichten und vor der Europäischen Menschen- rechtskommission abgegolten sind. 3. Die Beschwerdeführerin nimmt die Individualbeschwerde hiermit zurück." "1. The Land Berlin pays the applicant DM 12,000 (twelve thousand German marks). 2. The applicant declares that this payment covers all present and future claims in respect of the length of her divorce action against her husband [...], including any costs incurred in proceedings before domestic courts and the European Commission of Human Rights. 3. The applicant withdraws her application." The agreement was signed by the Agent on behalf of the respondent Government on 9 March, and by the applicant on 13 March 1990. Furthermore, the Agent informed the Commission that he had requested the competent Berlin authorities to pay the applicant the amount of DM 12,000. REASONS FOR THE DECISION The Commission notes that, in view of the above agreement, the applicant no longer wishes to maintain her application within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the further examination of this case. The Commission therefore accepts the applicant's request to withdraw her application. For these reasons, the Commission DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES. Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission (H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy