FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21214/03
by Edwin HASSDENTEUFEL
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mr J.S. Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations conducted pursuant to Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention,
Having regard to the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list of cases and the text of a unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application,
Having regard to the applicant’s comments on the Government’s proposal for a unilateral declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Edwin Hassdenteufel, is a German national who was born in 1943 and lives in Marpingen.
The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant suffers from encephalopathy which leads inter alia to memory loss and severe headaches. As a consequence he is invalid (erwerbsunfähig) and receives an invalidity pension.
On 27 October 1987 he requested the professional association for precision mechanics and electricians (Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und Elektrotechnik) to recognise his disease as an occupational disease (Berufskrankheit) and, as a consequence, to grant a supplementary pension therefor. The applicant argued that his encephalopathy was the result of a long term exposure to industrial solvents (Lösungsmittel) at his workplace.
On 10 July 1990 the professional association rejected the applicant’s aforementioned request for a supplementary pension.
On 23 August 1990 the applicant brought an action in the Social Court.
On 7 August 1991 the court granted the applicant reinstatement of proceedings for bringing an action against the professional association.
On 15 September 1994 the Social Court rejected the applicant’s action. Taking recourse to an expert opinion the court found that the applicant did not suffer from an occupational disease and was therefore not entitled to a supplementary pension.
On 13 October 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Social Court of Appeal. By decisions of 30 June and 6 November 1997 the court summoned a health insurance and the professional association of the chemical industry (Berufsgenossenschaft der chemischen Industrie) as interested parties (beigeladen). On 6 May 1998 the court heard twelve witnesses as to the conditions at the applicant’s workplace. Furthermore, the court obtained a supplementary expert opinion of the physician who had already rendered an expert opinion during the first instance proceedings. In addition, the court obtained a second expert opinion by another physician. Lastly, the court obtained, upon the applicant’s request and at his costs, another expert opinion by a third expert.
On 4 December 2001 the court ordered the first expert to submit a supplementary comment on his expert opinion.
On 31 January and 16 April 2002 the Social Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s motions for bias against that expert.
On 19 June 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the Social Court refusing him leave to appeal on points of law. The court concluded that the applicant did not suffer from an occupational disease based on the aforementioned expert opinions.
On 20 December 2002 the Federal Social Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal on points of law as inadmissible.
On 5 March 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s complaint against the judgment of the Social Court of Appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of proceedings had been excessive.
THE LAW
The applicant submitted that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and thus in violation of the “reasonable time” - requirement of Article 6 § 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
On 12 September 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government signed on 6 September 2007:
“In this case the court proposed a friendly settlement which was rejected by the applicant on 20 June 2007.
The Federal Government would therefore like to acknowledge – by way of a unilateral declaration – that the length of the proceedings at issue was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
If the Court strikes this case from its list, the Federal Government is willing to accept the Applicant’s claim for compensation in the amount of EUR 6,300.00. This sum of EUR 6,300.00 would be deemed to settle all claims of the Applicant in connection with the above-mentioned Application against the Federal Republic of Germany or the Saarland, including in particular compensation for the Applicant’s damage (including non-pecuniary damage) as well as costs and expenses. In light of the Court’s rulings in similar cases, the Federal Government considers the amount of EUR 6,300.00 to be reasonable.
The Federal Government therefore requests that this application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. The Federal Government’s acknowledgment of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings and its acceptance of the claim for compensation in the amount of EUR 6,300.00 constitutes “[an]other reason” within the meaning of this provision.”
The applicant replied on 25 September 2007 that he left it for the Court to decide whether the requirements for striking his application out of the list of pending cases were met.
The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of the attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the above declaration was made by the Government on 6 September 2007 outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations and the Court will therefore proceed on the basis of that declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out its list of cases, the Court will have regard to the criteria emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, § 23, judgment of 26 March 2002, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2001‑VI, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, §§ 30-32, 1 March 2005; MacDonald v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 301/04, 6 February 2007; Oleksiw v. Germany (dec.), no. 31384/02, 11 September 2007).
The Court notes that the present case raises as issue the length of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
It recalls that it has already specified in various judgments and decisions the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State as regards the determination of “civil rights and obligations” within a “reasonable time”, also in respect of the Federal Republic of Germany
(see, among many others, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01,
ECHR 2006-...; Nold v. Germany, no. 27250/02, 29 June 2006; Stork v. Germany, no. 38033/02, 13 July 2006; Klasen v. Germany, no. 75204/01, 5 October 2006; Grässer v. Germany, no. 66491/01, 5 October 2006;
Herbst v. Germany, no. 20027/02, 1 January 2007).
The Government’s declaration contains an acknowledgment that the length of the proceedings in the instant case was not in accordance with the “reasonable time” requirement. Furthermore, the Court considers the sum of EUR 6,300 for the applicant’s damage, including non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, to be acceptable.
Having regard to the above considerations and the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention). The Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue examination of the application in this respect (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy