AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24184/94
by Gisela KNAUF
against Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 5 April 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 6 May 1994 by
Gisela KNAUF against Germany and registered on 25 May 1994 under file
No. 24184/94;
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 applicant is a German citizen born in 1933 and living in
Eschenburg. She is represented by Mr. R. Battenstein, a lawyer
practising in Düsseldorf.
It follows from her statements and the documents submitted that
on 13 April 1989, the Gießen Social Court (Sozialgericht) rejected an
action brought by the applicant against a professional association for
precision mechanics and electricians (Berufsgenossenschaft).
The action concerned a dispute between the parties as to whether
the applicant's late husband had died as a consequence of an
occupational disease caused by asbestos. The applicant claimed a
widow's pension for reasons of this alleged "occupational disease".
According to the findings of the court, the applicant's late
husband, born in 1929, had been working from 1945 until 1950 as an
electrician's apprentice. According to the statements of former
colleagues, asbestos was used for the production of goods manufactured
by the firm which had been their employer. Furthermore, the late
husband had been working from 1950 until 1955 with another firm where
he had to install electric motors. It was possible that during that
period he was also exposed to asbestos.
In September 1983 he started to suffer from lung complaints and
died on 22 April 1984 as a consequence of lung cancer with metastases.
The medical superintendent of the specialised clinic in which the
applicant's late husband had been treated, Prof. M., attested, in a
letter of 25 April 1984, that the cancer had been caused by asbestos
to which the applicant had been exposed during his professional life.
Post-mortem examinations carried out by further medical experts
namely, Prof. Kr., Prof. Sch. and Prof. W. did, however, not confirm
Prof. M.'s opinion.
Prof. W. had made an analysis of the concentration of asbestos
fibres in the deceased patient's lungs and had come to the conclusion
that the figures obtained were to be situated in the lowest possible
range of measurable concentration and therefore considered that from
a medical point of view, there was no indication that the patient had,
in his professional career, been over-exposed to asbestos dust.
In a further comprehensive expert opinion of 13 December 1984
Prof. Kr. and Prof. Sch. stated that, as a result of an examination
under microscope of the lung remains a diagnosis of asbestosis had to
be ruled out. Consequently there was no causal link between the lung
cancer and the patient's alleged exposure to asbestos.
On 28 January 1985 a public health officer Dr. F. likewise
attested, in conformity with the expert opinion submitted by Prof. Kr.,
that the death had not been caused by an occupational disease.
In view of all these expert opinions, on 13 March 1985 the
defendant refused to grant social insurance cover for contraction of
an occupational disease. Objections against this decision had been
rejected by the authority on 30 September 1985 after having obtained
a further medical expert opinion which was submitted by Prof. L on
31 July 1985 and which confirmed that it was not probable that the
cancer of the applicant's husband had been caused by asbestos.
The Social Court ordered ex-officio that another expert opinion
should be prepared by Prof. W. taking into account a new decree on
occupational diseases. In his expert opinion of 20 October 1988 Prof.
W. stated that the existence of a causal link could not be proven with
the necessary probability while, on the other hand, it could not be
excluded either.
The Social Court stated that it was convinced by the expert
opinion of Prof. W., dated 20 October 1988, which confirmed the expert
opinions submitted by Prof. L. on 31 July 1985 and Prof. Kr. on
13 December 1984 obtained in the pre-trial administrative proceedings.
Contrary to the plaintiff's opinion it had to be concluded from
these expert opinions that the deceased did not suffer from a
mesothelioma but of a bronchialcarcinoma. It was true that Prof. M.
had, in the course of the treatment, diagnosed a mesothelioma but this
diagnosis had been disproved by an autopsy carried out by Prof. Kr.
The autopsy permitted an extensive examination under microscope.
On the basis of the result of the autopsy the experts, Prof. L.
and Prof. W., had come to the conclusion, so the court pointed out,
that a causal link between the alleged exposure to asbestos and the
deadly disease could not be established with sufficient probability
although it could likewise not be completely excluded. The court also
considered that the available expert evidence was sufficient and there
was no necessity to grant the plaintiff's motion to obtain another
expert opinion from a medical doctor in New York.
The plaintiff's appeal (Berufung) was rejected by the Hessian
Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on 16 December 1992.
Following a request of the plaintiff, this court also obtained an
additional expert opinion from Prof. N. and Dr. P. who likewise came
to the conclusion that the existence of a causal link could not be
proved with sufficient probability.
The appellate court also relied on the expert opinions of
Prof. Kr. and Prof. W. It pointed out that according to the findings
of Prof. W. the examination under microscope of the deceased's lung
remains had shown that the lung contained a concentration of asbestos
fibres which was insignificant i.e. compared to three groups namely,
normal lungs, lungs which had received low exposure to asbestos and
those which had received high exposure. The results found in the
present case were slightly above normal. The court pointed out that
consequently all medical experts, namely, Profs. Kr., L., and N. as
well as Dr. F., had unanimously denied the existence of a causal link
between the disease and the patient's prior exposure to asbestos. The
appellate court considered that these expert opinions were conclusive
and convincing.
The appellate court also took into consideration that according
to a recent recommendation of a medical expert council a lung cancer
should be considered to have been caused by asbestos dust if the cancer
patient had been exposed to asbestos for at least 25 years at his work
place. The court found however that there was no proof that the
plaintiff's deceased husband had been exposed to asbestos for such a
long period. There was only proof that during his apprenticeship from
July 1945 until May 1950 the deceased had been exposed to asbestos but
its density could no longer be assessed as the firm had gone bankrupt
in the 1950s and information about the concrete working conditions
could no longer be obtained.
The appellate court therefore likewise relied on the findings of
the experts, Prof. W. and N., who unanimously had excluded the
probability of a causal link in view of the small amount of asbestos
fibre concentration found by way of examination under microscope of the
diseased lung.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's motion to obtain a
further expert's report (Obergutachten) stating that such an expert
opinion was not necessary as the expert opinion of Prof. Kr. was
exhaustive and had been confirmed by several other medical experts.
The court also pointed out that the questions which had been put to the
medical expert had been determined in collaboration with the plaintiff
and this also excluded the need to obtain a further expert opinion.
On 5 August 1993 the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht)
denied the plaintiff leave to appeal on points of law (Revision). It
is stated in the decision that the judgment appealed from did not
disclose any violation of procedural rights as:
- in view of the extensive evidence available, the appellate court
was justified in refusing to obtain a counter-expert opinion;
- the appellate court had taken into consideration recent
recommendations of a medical expert council and had stated grounds why
these were irrelevant in the given case. The plaintiff, on the other
hand, had not shown that in view of an alleged precedent there had been
reason to decide otherwise;
- insofar as further offers of evidence had been disregarded by the
appellate court it had stated sufficient reasons why it considered the
evidence in question to be irrelevant.
Furthermore the Federal Social Court denied that the matter
raised any issue of a general nature.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint which was
rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 3 November 1993 on the ground that the
requirements as stated in Section 93 (a) para. 2 of the Act on the
Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGG) were not given.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant considers that contrary to the opinion of the
medical experts heard in her case and the opinion of the social courts,
the asbestos dust concentration found in her deceased husband's lung
was not only of consequence but extremely high and therefore
corresponded to that of the group of persons who have been heavily
exposed to asbestos. In these circumstances the applicant considers
it to be a violation to a right to a fair trial as guaranteed by
Article 6 of the Convention that the Social Court of Appeal rejected
her request for a further expert opinion. The applicant considers that
the social court's opinion that even in normal lungs traces of asbestos
dust may be found, is not based on any proof but mere speculation and
therefore an expert opinion should have been obtained on this question.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the decisions given against her in the
social court proceedings and considers that her right to a fair trial
has been violated because her request to seek a further expert opinion
had been rejected by the domestic courts.
With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant
complains, the Commission first points out that, in accordance with
Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the
observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the
Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with an
application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by
domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have
involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out
in the Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its
constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3
pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77 ;
No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).
It is true that in the present case the applicant alleges a
violation of her right to a fair trial. She considers that further
expert evidence should have been obtained by the domestic courts.
However, the Commission notes that the Social Court and also the
Social Court of Appeal had sufficient expert evidence before them. The
Social Court of Appeal even obtained, at the plaintiff's request, a
further additional expert opinion from Professor N. and Dr. P who, as
the preceding experts, likewise came to the conclusion that the
existence of a causal link between the applicant's late husband's death
and his prior alleged professional exposure to asbestos could not be
proved with sufficient probability.
The Commission points out that it is a matter for the domestic
judge to appreciate the relevance of proposed evidence. Neither
para. 1 nor para. 3 (d) of Article 6 (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) give to the
party in a trial an absolute right to obtain the examination of
witnesses or experts on its behalf (see Barbèra, Messegué and Jabardo
judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31 para. 68). The
Commission notes that the appellate court based its judgment on several
expert opinions which had unanimously found no established causal link
between the applicant's late husband's disease and his prior exposure
to asbestos. The Commission concludes that in these circumstances it
cannot be found that the refusal of the application to obtain a further
expert opinion amounted to a possible violation of the applicant's
right to a fair trial.
It follows that the application has to be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C. L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy