FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27156/05
by Ingeborg ZINGRAF
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on
28 August 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ingeborg Zingraf, is a German national who was born in 1945 and lives in Baden-Baden.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
From February 1972 to June 1974 the applicant worked as a medical-technical assistant in a state-owned laboratory in Düsseldorf. She developed a skin disease which was caused by a hyper sensibility against the substance formaldehyde. From 1974 she worked in a hospital. In 1976 she discontinued working as a medical-technical assistant and trained as a teacher. From 1983 onwards, she was granted a partial pension to compensate a reduction of earning capacity due to her skin disease of 20 %, which was later increased to 40 %.
2. Administrative proceedings
a) Request of 1985
In 1985 the applicant requested the Cologne Health Insurance Association (Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege) to establish that she was suffering from a respiratory disease which had been caused by the exposure to formaldehyde during her work as a
medical-technical assistant from 1972 to 1974.
On 21 September 1988 the Health Insurance, having heard medical expert opinion, dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that it had not been established that her alleged disease had been caused by exposure to toxic substances at her work place. On 24 April 1990 the insurance rejected the applicant’s objection (Widerspuch) lodged in October 1988.
On 11 May 1990 the applicant appealed to the Düsseldorf Social Court.
b) Request of 1989
In 1989 the applicant alleged that a number of other diseases had been caused by her having been exposed to formaldehyde during her work as a medical-technical assistant. On 3 April 1990 the applicant refused to be examined by a medical expert appointed by the Health Insurance.
On 11 May 1990 the medical expert N. submitted his expert opinion on the basis of the material at his disposal, without having personally examined the applicant.
On 3 September 1990 the Health Insurance rejected the applicant’s request. On 18 December 1990 the Health Insurance rejected the applicant’s objection.
On 14 January 1991 the applicant appealed to the Düsseldorf Social Court.
3. Proceedings before the Düsseldorf Social Court
On 24 April 1992 the Düsseldorf Social Court decided to join the applicant’s two motions and to summon two associations, the Northrhine-Westfalia Health Insurance (Landesunfallkasse Nordrhein-Westfalen) and the Health Insurance for the Rhenanian Communities (Rheinischer Gemeindeunfallversicherungsverband) to the proceedings.
On 10 May 1994 the Northrhine-Westfalia Health Insurance refused to accept that the applicant’s alleged disease had been caused by her laboratory work. The applicant’s objection was dismissed on 13 April 1995.
The Düsseldorf Social Court joined these decisions to the pending proceedings.
During the court proceedings, the applicant submitted a considerable number of medical expert opinions and further documents.
On 20 February 1997 the applicant requested to be examined by the medical expert Dr W.
On 30 April 1997 the Social Court heard three witnesses as to the applicant’s working conditions during the relevant time from 1972 to 1974.
On 23 July 1998 the Düsseldorf Social Court dismissed the applicant’s motion on the ground that it had not been sufficiently established that the applicant’s alleged diseases had been caused by her laboratory work from 1972 to 1974. Having regard to the complexity of the applicant’s medical condition, the Social Court considered that it would have been necessary to have her examined by a court-appointed expert. The Social Court emphasised that it was the court’s task to choose an expert, and not that of the applicant. As the applicant had unambiguously objected to further medical examinations, it had not been possible to take the required evidence.
This judgment was served on the applicant on 10 December 1998.
4. Proceedings before the Social Court of Appeal
On 30 December 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Northrhine-Westfalia Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht).
On 27 March 2000 the Social Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s medical examination by the court-appointed medical expert Prof H.
On 11 March 2001 Prof H., having examined the applicant, submitted his expert opinion.
On 14 May 2001 the applicant submitted her comments to the expert opinion and requested the Court of Appeal to hear the expert Prof. B.
On 2 July 2001 the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s further medical examination by the medical expert Prof B.
On 30 October 2002 the expert Prof B., having examined the applicant on 29 August 2002, submitted his expert opinion.
On 22 November 2004 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal to the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht). Following the concurring opinions submitted by both court-appointed experts, the Social Court of Appeal considered that the applicant did not suffer from a respiratory disease. The Court of Appeal further held that it had not been established that the applicant’s further diseases, insofar as they had been confirmed by expert opinion, had been caused by exposure to formaldehyde.
5. Further proceedings
On 10 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint against the refusal to be granted leave to appeal with the Federal Social Court (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde).
On 11 March 2005 the Federal Social Court rejected the applicant’s complaint.
On 15 April 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
On 23 June 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant on 2 July 2005.
6. Criminal informations lodged by the applicant
On 17 February and 25 April 1988 the applicant laid criminal informations with the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor. She alleged that unknown persons had manipulated her car and exposed her to toxic substances.
On 22 June 1988 the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor informed her that the proceedings had been discontinued because it had not been possible to identify the offender.
On 6 April 1989 the applicant laid a further criminal information alleging that her private correspondence had been opened.
On 2 October 1998 the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor informed her that proceedings had been discontinued.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. She also invoked Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts. She complained, in particular, that the domestic courts refused to take requested evidence and to take into account her own submissions.
She further alleged that the Social Court of Appeal had failed to serve all relevant documents on the third parties to the proceedings and that it had failed to serve certain submissions made by the third party on her.
3. The applicant finally invoked Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.
She complained, in particular, that the domestic authorities had failed to protect her against manipulations of her car and against interferences with her correspondence.
THE LAW
1. Complaint about the length of the proceedings
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. She invoked Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be considered under Article 6 § 1 which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court finds that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint. It is therefore necessary to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court.
2. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints
The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the social courts had been unfair. Invoking Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, she finally complained that the domestic authorities failed to protect her against the manipulations at her car and against the interference with her correspondence.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints, insofar as the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that the remainder of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy