EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 16958/90
Abdulkadir Sahinler
against
Germany
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 10 February 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1 - 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 7 - 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 17 - 27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Complaint declared admissible
(para. 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Point at issue
(para. 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(paras. 19 - 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CONCLUSION
(para. 27). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
APPENDIX : Decision on the admissibility of the application . . . . 7
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present Report concerns Application No. 16958/90 by
Abdulkadir Sahinler against the Federal Republic of Germany, introduced
on 29 December 1989 and registered on 31 July 1990.
2. The applicant, born in 1933, is a Turkish national and resident
in Berlin. He is a teacher by profession. Before the Commission he
is represented by Mr. Deumeland, residing in Berlin.
The German Government are represented by their Agent,
Mr. Meyer-Ladewig, Federal Ministry of Justice.
3. The application was communicated to the Government on
2 July 1991. On 2 December 1991 the application was referred to a
Chamber. Following an exchange of memorials, the applicant's complaint
under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention relating to the length of
social court proceedings was declared admissible on 2 September 1992.
The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.
With a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case,
consultations took place with the parties between 11 September and
22 October 1992.
4. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly
settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention can be secured, the Commission (Second Chamber), after
deliberating, adopted this Report in accordance with Article 31 para. 1
of the Convention, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
J.-C. GEUS
5. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether
the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Germany.
6. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with
Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
7. In September 1983 the applicant informed his employer, the Land
Berlin, that he had had an accident while teaching. He submitted that
on 12 September 1983 a pupil had misbehaved in class and upset him so
much that since then he had been unfit to work.
8. On 26 March 1984 the Land Berlin, having heard several doctors
and a psychiatric expert, refused to pay the applicant allowances under
the Industrial Accident Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Unfall-
versicherung) on the ground that the event of 12 September 1983 could
not be considered as an accident. The applicant's appeal (Widerspruch)
was dismissed on 6 July 1984.
9. On 29 July 1984 the applicant filed an action with the Berlin
Social Court (Sozialgericht) against the Land Berlin, represented by
the Berlin Industrial Accident Insurance Office (Eigenunfall-
versicherung), claiming that the insulting remarks of the pupil
concerned had caused his illness. In these proceedings the applicant
was represented by Mr. Deumeland.
10. On 4 February 1985 the Berlin Social Court dismissed the
applicant's action. The Social Court found that the applicant could
not claim payments under the Industrial Accident Insurance Scheme, as
he had not suffered an industrial accident within the meaning of the
relevant provisions of the Reich Insurance Code (Reichsunfall-
versicherung). The incident on 12 September 1983 could only be
regarded as a casual cause for any health problems which he suffered.
11. The judgment was served upon the applicant on 6 March 1985.
12. On 7 March 1985 the applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) with the
Berlin Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht). In these
proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr. M., a lawyer
practising in Berlin, as well as by Mr. Deumeland.
13. On 29 January 1989 the Berlin Social Court of Appeal dismissed
the applicant's appeal. The Social Court of Appeal considered that the
applicant had failed to show that he had suffered from an industrial
accident within the meaning of the Reich Insurance Code, in particular
that on 12 September 1983 a pupil had gravely insulted him and thereby
caused a health problem. In this respect, the Social Court of Appeal
proceeded from a medical report of 3 June 1985 and the testimony of
witnesses, who had been heard on 5 November 1987 and 4 February 1988.
The Court of Appeal did not grant leave to appeal on points of law
(Revision) to the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht).
14. On 6 April 1989 the judgment of 29 January 1989 was served upon
the applicant by deposit at the Berlin 36 Post Office.
15. On 21 June 1989 the Federal Social Court declared the applicant's
request for leave to appeal on points of law (Nichtzulassungs-
beschwerde) inadmissible on the ground that he had failed duly to
substantiate the reasons for appeal.
16. The Federal Social Court's decision was served upon the
applicant's counsel on 4 July 1989.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaint declared admissible
17. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint
that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.
B. Point at issue
18. The point at issue is whether there has been a violation of the
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that the length of
the proceedings complained of exceeded a "reasonable time".
C. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
19. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention includes the
following provision:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time
by (a) ... tribunal ..."
20. The proceedings in question concerned an action brought by the
applicant before German social courts against the Land Berlin, his
employer, represented by the Berlin Industrial Accident Insurance
Office for payment of allowances under the Industrial Accident
Insurance Scheme in respect of an industrial accident allegedly
suffered by him. The purpose of these proceedings was to obtain a
decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" (cf. Eur.
Court H.R., Deumeland judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100,
pp. 21-25, paras. 59-74). They accordingly fell within the scope of
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
21. The Government submit that the starting point for the relevant
period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is
29 July 1984 when the applicant filed his action with the Berlin Social
Court. They consider that the preceding period of administrative
appeal proceedings should not be taken into account on the ground that
such proceedings were not mandatory. The proceedings thus lasted
approximately five years until 4 July 1989, when the Federal Social
Court's decision refusing leave to appeal on points of law was served
upon the applicant's counsel.
22. The Commission shares the Government's view on the period to be
taken into account in the application of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).
23. The applicant submits that the length of the proceedings was
unreasonable. The Government accept that the case was, as a whole, a
simple one. They consider that the duration of the proceedings before
the Berlin Social Court and the Federal Social Court were appropriate.
The genuine cause for the total length of the proceedings was the
length of the appeal proceedings before the Social Court of Appeal
which lasted almost four years. However, the Social Court of Appeal
did not cause any delay of the proceedings due to a lack of efficiency.
Rather, the length of the proceedings before that Court resulted from
its particular working methods under a collegial system and the large
number of cases pending before it.
24. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria:
the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct
of the authorities dealing with the case, which in this instance call
for a global assessment (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of
20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30; Salerno judgment
of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-D, para. 19).
25. The Commission finds that neither the issues arising in the
applicant's action before the German social courts nor his conduct in
the course of the proceedings are in themselves sufficient to explain
the overall length of the proceedings. As regards the conduct of the
German courts, the Commission notes in particular the length of the
appeal proceedings before the Berlin Social Court of Appeal
(7 March 1985 to 6 April 1989). The Commission finds that the
Government, referring to that Court's particular working methods and
its heavy workload, have not sufficiently explained this extraordinary
duration of appeal proceedings in this simple case.
26. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having
regard to all the information in its possession, the Commission
therefore finds that the overall length of the court proceedings
complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
CONCLUSION
27. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy