AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20457/92
by Hermann HÄUSSLER
against Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 September 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 27 July 1992 by
Hermann HÄUSSLER against Germany and registered on 10 August 1992 under
file No. 20457/92;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the Commission's decision of 22 February 1995
to communicate the applicant's complaint about the length of the
proceedings and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the
application;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 2 May 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 16 June 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, born in 1921, is a German national and resident
in Munich.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant, who was employed in the German civil service,
receives a supplementary pension (Versorgungsrente), which is
administered by the Supplementary Pensions Office (Versorgungsanstalt
des Bundes und der Länder). In 1982 and 1984 the statutes of this
pension scheme were amended in order to avoid that the amounts paid
under the general old age pension scheme, plus the amounts paid under
the supplementary pension scheme for the civil service, exceeded the
last net salaries of the employees in the civil service. These
amendments also affected cases where insurance contracts already
existed or pensions were paid.
On 30 April 1985 the Supplementary Pensions Office informed the
applicant that his supplementary pension had been recalculated on the
basis of its amended statutes. The applicant, represented by counsel,
brought an action against the Supplementary Pensions Office claiming
payment of his original pension on 1 August 1985.
On 14 February 1986 the Karlsruhe Regional Court (Landgericht)
dismissed the applicant's action.
On 3 November 1988 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 20 September 1989 the Federal Court of Justice
(Bundesgerichtshof) did not admit his appeal on points of law.
On 6 November 1991 a group of three judges at the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to admit the
applicant's constitutional complaint on the ground that it did not
offer sufficient prospect of success. On 6 December 1991 the decision
was served upon the applicant's counsel, who forwarded it to the
applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about
the length of the proceedings regarding his supplementary pension.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was registered on 10 August 1992.
On 22 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the
respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.
The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
On 2 May 1995 the Government submitted their observations. The
applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 16 June 1995.
THE LAW
The applicant complains about the length of the court proceedings
regarding his supplementary pension.
The Government have addressed the question of whether the
applicant lodged his above complaint within the period of six months
under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
According to Article 26 (Art. 26), the Commission may only deal
with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,
according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and
within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision
was taken.
The Commission notes that the decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court of 6 November 1991, rejecting the applicant's
constitutional complaint, was served upon the applicant's counsel on
6 December 1991. Accordingly, the period of six months under
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention expired on 6 June 1992 (cf.,
mutatis mutandis, No. 14056/88, Dec. 28.5.91, D.R. 70 p. 208; No.
22714/93, Dec. 27.11.95, not published). The Commission further
observes that the applicant's counsel forwarded a copy of the decision
to the applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.
The Commission finds that, in his correspondence prior to
expiration of the relevant time-limit, the applicant did not raise,
either expressly or in substance, his complaint about the length of
the court proceedings. However, as regards complaints not included in
the initial application, the Commission recalls that the running of the
period of six months is not interrupted until the date when the
complaint is first submitted to the Commission (cf., No. 10293/83,
Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 41; No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48
p. 106). The applicant first lodged this complaint in his application
form submitted on 20 July 1992, i.e. more than six months after the
final decision.
Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose any
particular circumstance which could have interrupted or suspended the
running of time during this period of six months.
It follows that the applicant's complaint about the length of the
court proceedings has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy