Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
July 1997
Pammel v. Germany - 17820/91
Judgment 1.7.1997
Article 6
Constitutional proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Reasonable time
Length of proceedings in the Federal Constitutional Court to review constitutionality of legislation after application for a preliminary ruling: Article 6 § 1 applicable; violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Applicability
Case concerned only length of proceedings in a constitutional court - Article 6 § 1 applicable if outcome of proceedings decisive for civil rights and obligations - dispute relating to applicant's right of property concerned a civil right - Federal Constitutional Court's decision directly decisive for the civil right in question - as proceedings arose from an application for a preliminary ruling, civil court had to wait for Federal Constitutional Court's decision before it could give judgment.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously).
B.Compliance
1.Period to be taken into consideration
Starting-point: civil court's application to the Federal Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling.
End: date on which Federal Constitutional Court delivered its decision.
Total: just under five years and three months.
2.Applicable criteria
(a) Complexity of the case
Case undoubtedly complex: review of constitutionality extended by Federal Constitutional Court of its own motion to embrace another provision of Allotment Gardens Act - scope of its judgment went well beyond present case - necessary to obtain observations of various authorities before it gave its decision.
(b) Conduct of the applicant
Not responsible for any delay to the proceedings.
(c) Conduct of the Federal Constitutional Court
Chronic overload, like the one the Federal Constitutional Court had laboured under since end of 1970s, could not justify excessive length of proceedings.
Case pending for more than five years - secondary role of German reunification in present case - similar case had been referred to Federal Constitutional Court two years before.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Pecuniary damage: compensation awarded for undoubted loss of opportunities.
B.Costs and expenses: reimbursed in part.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy