EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                         Application No. 20024/92

                             Gerhard Süssmann

                                  against

                                  Germany

                         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                        (adopted on 12 April 1995)

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page

I.    INTRODUCTION

      (paras. 1-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

      (paras. 6-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

      (paras. 31-61). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

      A.    Complaint declared admissible

            (para. 31). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

      B.    Point at issue

            (para. 32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

      C.    Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

            (paras. 33-60). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

            CONCLUSION

            (para. 61). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX I:  PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

            ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

APPENDIX II: FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

I.    INTRODUCTION

1.    The present Report concerns Application No. 20024/92 introduced on

21 May 1992 against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on

22 May 1992.

      The applicant is a German national born in 1916 and resident in

Karlsruhe.

      The respondent Government are represented by Mr. J. Meyer-Ladewig,

Ministerialdirigent, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

2.    The complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention) was communicated to the Government for observations on

8 September 1993.  The remainder of the application was declared

inadmissible.  Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint

relating to the length of proceedings was declared admissible on

30 August 1994.  The decisions on admissibility are appended to this Report.

within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be

secured, the Commission, after deliberating, adopted this Report on

12 April 1995, in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the

following members being present:

            MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

                  F. ERMACORA

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

            Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

            Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

            Mrs.  J. LIDDY

            MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                  J.-C. GEUS

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                  B. MARXER

                  M.A. NOWICKI

                  B. CONFORTI

                  I. BÉKÉS

                  J. MUCHA

                  E. KONSTANTINOV

                  D. SVÁBY

                  G. RESS

4.    In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the

facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Germany.

5.    The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2

of the Convention.

II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A.    The particular circumstances of the case

6.    The applicant, who was employed in the German civil service, receives

a supplementary pension (Versorgungsrente).  Employees in the German civil

service have a supplementary old age insurance, administered by the

Supplementary Pensions Office (Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der

Länder), which entitles to a progressive supplementary pension.

7.    In March 1982 and again in March 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 16 March 1988, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof),

in leading cases, confirmed the lawfulness of the amendment.

8.    On 16 May and 3 June 1988 the Supplementary Pensions Office fixed the

amount of the applicant's supplementary pension in accordance with the

amended statutes.

9.    The applicant appealed to the Arbitration Tribunal (Schieds-gericht)

at the Supplementary Pensions Office.  Arbitration was provided for under

the statutes of the Supplementary Pensions Office.

10.   On 20 February 1987 the Arbitration Tribunal dismissed his appeal.

On 10 March 1989 the High Arbitration Court (Oberschieds-gericht) dismissed

his further appeal.

11.   On 11 July 1988 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) concerning the amendments to the statutes of the

Supplementary Pensions Scheme of 1982 and 1984.  Subsequently, he made

further submissions. On 4 April 1989 he extended his complaints to the

decision of the High Arbitration Court of 10 March 1989.

12.   The applicant's case was assigned to the Second Chamber of the First

Senate at the Federal Constitutional Court.  At that time and in the

following two years other complaints on this matter were lodged; 24 cases

raised almost the same issues.  The Second Chamber also conducted

proceedings in cases concerning, inter alia, the periods of notice regarding

the dismissal of workers (decided on 30 May 1990), the right of an employer

to lock out workers in the course of strikes (decided on 26 June 1991), and

the constitutional complaints of former civil servants of the German

Democratic Republic regarding a provision of the Unification Treaty

terminating their contracts of employment (decided on 24 April 1991).

13.   On 6 November 1991 the Second Chamber, composed of three judges, of

the First Senate at the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the

applicant's constitutional complaint on the ground that it did not offer

sufficient prospect of success.

14.   The Constitutional Court found that his complaint was inadmissible to

the extent that factual or legal issues could have been raised in

proceedings before the competent lower courts.  However, the remainder of

his complaints, in particular about unfairness of the proceedings before the

Federal Court of Justice and about violation of his right to property, were

admissible.  The judgments of the Federal Court of Justice of 16 March 1988

had finally determined the factual and legal position, and no further

appeals were necessary in order to exhaust ordinary remedies.

15.   As regards the applicant's complaint about unfairness, the

Constitutional Court found no indication that the courts had failed duly to

consider factual submissions as to the amendment of the statutes concerned.

The judgments were mainly based upon two opinions by expert commissions of

September 1975 and November 1983.  No further evidence had to be taken.

16.   The Constitutional Court further stated that, assuming the pension

rights concerned fell within the scope of the constitutional right to

property, there was no indication of a violation of this right.  The pension

rights could be reduced by amending the statute under the rules of private

law.

17.   The Constitutional Court noted that the Federal Court of Justice had

found the pensions under the scheme managed by the Supplementary Pensions

Office to be governed by private law.  This appreciation had not generally

been disputed by the applicant.  The Constitutional Court further noted that

the Federal Court of Justice regarded the pension insurance as insurance for

a group of persons (Gruppenversicherung), the employer being the insured and

the employees the beneficiaries.  The Federal Court of Justice, examining

the compliance of the amendment with the employees' interests, had

considered that the amendments had, in reaction to a socially intolerable

development, remedied a serious interference with the purpose of the

supplementary pension.  It served the consolidation of all old age pension

schemes and was based upon a decision of principle taken by employers and

employed.  The wide margin of appreciation in this context had not been

overstepped.

18.   The Constitutional Court held that these findings of the Federal Court

of Justice did not disclose any violation of constitutional rights.  In

particular the interests of the individual employees as beneficiaries could

reasonably be protected by the professional organisations representing them.

Having regard to the general interest in a solid system of old age pensions

which could be financed, a collective safeguard of the employees' interests

appeared appropriate.  The deviation from previous case-law of the Federal

Court of Justice regarding the employee as an insured person under the

statutes in question did not amount to a violation of property rights as the

case-law did not have any binding effect.

19.   The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant's doubts as to

the impartiality of the judges at the arbitration courts were irrelevant,

as they were not part of the judiciary, but arbitration boards under private

law.

20.   The decision was served on 5 December 1991.

B.    The relevant domestic law

21.   According to Article 93 para. 1 (4a) of the German Basic Law

(Grundgesetz), the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes-verfassungsgericht)

shall decide, inter alia, on constitutional complaints

(Verfassungsbeschwerden), which may be lodged by any person claiming to be

the victim of a violation by a public authority of one of the basic rights

(Grundrechte) or of one of the rights under Article 20 para. 4, Articles 33,

38, 101, 103, 104 of the Basic Law.

22.   The constitution and procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court is

regulated by the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Gesetz über das

Bundesverfassungsgericht).

23.   SS. 90 to 96 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act concern the

above-mentioned constitutional complaint proceedings.  At the relevant time,

the Constitutional Court Act 1985 was in force; the rules as set out in the

following paragraphs refer to this version of the law.

24.   S. 90 para. 1 defines the persons entitled to lodge a constitutional

complaint.  Paragraph 2 requires complainants to exhaust, in general, the

available ordinary remedies; the Constitutional Court may, in exceptional

circumstances, decide upon a constitutional complaint before such remedies

have been exhausted.

25.   A constitutional complaint has to be lodged in writing, indicating the

right allegedly violated and the responsible public authority (S. 92).  The

constitutional complaint has to be lodged within one month from the service

of, or information about, the decision concerned; in case of a

constitutional complaint about a law or about another act of a public

authority against which there is no recourse to a court, the constitutional

complaint has to be lodged within one year from the entry into force of that

law or act (S. 93).

26.   According to S. 93a, the constitutional complaint needs to be admitted

for examination.  S. 93b para. 1 provides that the Chamber, composed of

three judges, can unanimously refuse to admit a constitutional complaint,

if the complainant failed to pay the advance court fee, if the complaint is

inadmissible or does not, for other reasons, offer sufficient prospect of

success, or if the Senate will probably not admit the complaint under

S. 93c, second sentence.  There is no appeal against the decision.  The

Chamber can, unanimously, decide upon complaints which are manifestly well-

founded because the relevant legal questions have already been decided by

the Federal Constitutional Court (S. 93c para. 2).  The Chamber decides in

written proceedings; and the reasoning of a decision not to admit a

constitutional complaint may be limited to referring to the legal aspect

decisive for not admitting it.

27.   Where the Chamber has not decided upon the question of either

admitting or refusing to admit a constitutional complaint, the Senate

decides and admits the complaint if at least two judges consider that the

decision is likely to clarify a question of constitutional law, or if

otherwise the complainant would suffer a grave and irreparable prejudice

(S. 93c).

28.   S. 94 regulates the rights of third parties to be heard in the

constitutional complaint proceedings.

29.   S. 95 provides in particular that, in case the constitutional

complaint is successful, the reasoning of the decision has to contain a

reference to the provision of the Basic Law which was violated and to the

public act which constituted the said violation.  Unconstitutional decisions

are quashed by the Federal Constitutional Court, and a law will be declared

void.

30.   The Federal Constitutional Court Act was subsequently amended in order

to discharge the Federal Constitutional Court; the amendment of 1993 (entry

into force on 11 August 1993) restructured in particular the proceedings

regarding constitutional complaints (S. 93a to S. 93d of the Constitutional

Court Act 1993).

III.  OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A.    Complaint declared admissible

31.   The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that

his case was not heard within a reasonable time by the Federal

Constitutional Court.

B.    Point at issue

32.   The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

33.   The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

provides as follows :

      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

      everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a)

      ... tribunal ..."

34.   The applicant, a retired employee from the German civil service,

complains about the length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional

Court. These proceedings related to his constitutional complaint about the

reduction of his supplementary pension following amendments to a pension

scheme for employees in the civil service.  The Second Chamber of the First

Senate at the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit this complaint

on the ground that it did not offer sufficient prospect of success.

a.    Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

35.   According to the applicant, the length of his constitutional complaint

proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court falls to be examined

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

36.   The Government submit that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not apply

to the constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal

Constitutional Court.

37.   They consider that the criterion applied in the case-law of the

European Court of Human Rights, namely whether or not the Constitutional

Court's decision was capable of affecting the outcome of the case which has

been litigated before the ordinary courts, is inappropriate, as there was

no conceivable case in which the Constitutional Court's decision had no

effect on the proceedings before the ordinary courts.  The Constitutional

Court's proceedings would thus always be covered by Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1).

38.   The Government are of the opinion that proceedings before the Federal

Constitutional Court, taking into account its particular position and tasks

under the German Basic Law, cannot be regarded as relating to a dispute over

"civil rights and obligations".  Rather the Constitutional Court decided on

the constitutional aspects of a case and not on the merits of the dispute

between the parties.

within a reasonable time could not be applied to the constitutional

complaint proceedings.  Though normally such complaints, if they were

inadmissible or did not offer sufficient prospect of success, were dealt

with within some weeks or months, they could be delayed because of the

workload of the Federal Constitutional Court, because of the joinder of

similar cases or the priority to be given to more important cases.  The

Government also point at the far-reaching consequences for the functioning

and the structure of the Federal Constitutional Court, should Article 6

(Art. 6) be regarded as applicable.

40.   The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) applies to

"all proceedings the result of which is decisive for private rights and

obligations" and that "the character of the legislation which governs how

the matter is to be determined (civil, commercial, administrative law, etc.)

and that of the authority which is invested with jurisdiction in the matter

(ordinary court, administrative body, etc.) are therefore of little

consequence" (Eur. Court H.R., Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A

no. 13, p. 39, para. 94; as recent authority Stran Greek Refineries and

Stratis Andreadis judgment of 9 December 1994, para. 39, to be published in

Series A no. 301-B).

solely the length of his constitutional complaint proceedings before the

Federal Constitutional Court.  The applicant, without having brought his

case before the civil courts, was in a position directly to lodge his

constitutional complaint after decisions by arbitration tribunals.

Moreover, in a leading case, the Federal Court of Justice had confirmed the

statutory amendments resulting in a reduction of the civil servants' pension

rights under the Supplementary Pension Scheme.  The applicant's proceedings

before the Federal Constitutional Court have to be seen against this

background of disputes concerning the entitlement to a particular amount of

pension, i.e. pecuniary claims, and are as such of a civil nature (cf.

Eur. Court H.R., Francesco Lombardo judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A

no. 249-B, pp. 26-27, para. 17; Giancarlo Lombardo judgment of

26  November 1992, Series A no. 249-C, p. 42, para. 16).

42.   For the purpose of calculating the relevant period when the reasonable

length of civil proceedings is at issue, proceedings in a Constitutional

Court have been taken into account where the result of such proceedings is

capable of affecting the outcome of the proceedings before the ordinary

courts (Eur. Court H.R., Ruiz-Mateos judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A

no. 262, pp. 19-20, para. 35-37, with further references, as well as the

Court's statement, at p. 19, para. 35, abandoning the approach taken in the

Buchholz judgment of 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42, p. 15, para. 48).

43.   The Commission finds that these considerations also apply in the

present case, where the constitutional proceedings were initiated by the

applicant following an arbitration in his own case and decisions of the

Federal Court of Justice in leading cases.  Invoking inter alia his

constitutional right of property, the applicant complained before the

Federal Constitutional Court in particular about  unconstitutionality of the

statutory amendments to the Supplementary Pension Scheme, and of the

decisions based thereupon.  The Commission observes that, in case of success

of a constitutional complaint, the Federal Constitutional Court, in

accordance with S. 95 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, does not only

state the violation of the Basic Law and indicate the responsible public

authority, but also has the power to quash the decision, or declare void the

law, complained of.

44.   The Commission has next considered that the proceedings at issue

solely related to the preliminary examination, under the relevant provisions

of the Federal Constitutional Court Act 1985 (in force in the period

concerned), of whether the applicant's constitutional complaint fulfilled

the conditions to be admitted for a further examination (see above,

paragraphs 26 and 27).  According to S. 93b of the Constitutional Court Act

1985, the Chamber had to decide at this stage whether any request for

payment of an advance court fee had been complied with, whether the

complaint was inadmissible or did not, for other reasons, offer sufficient

prospect of success, and finally whether or not the decision was likely to

clarify a question of constitutional law, or whether the complainant would

suffer a grave and irreparable prejudice in case his complaint was not

admitted.  The above provision also entitled the Chamber to decide itself

that the complaints were well-founded in the light of the existing case-law.

45.   In this context the Commission recalls that the Convention does not

compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation

(cf. Eur. Court H.R., Delcourt judgment of 17 February 1970, Series A no.

11, p. 15, para. 25; Monnell and Morris judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A

no. 115, p. 21, para. 54), or grant persons under their jurisdiction a

constitutional appeal in addition to the appeals available before the

ordinary courts (No. 6916/75, Dec. 12.3.76, D.R. 6 p. 101).  A State which

institutes such courts is required to ensure that persons amenable to the

law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in

Article 6 (Art. 6) (Eur. Court H.R., Delcourt judgment, loc. cit.; Monnell

and Morris judgment, loc. cit.).  However, the State concerned is entitled

to lay down the provisions by which the appeal shall be governed and fix the

conditions under which it may be brought (No. 6916/75, Dec. 12.3.76, loc.

cit.; No. 11826/85, Dec. 9.5.89, D.R. 61 p. 138).

46.   The Commission observes that Article 6 (Art. 6) has been applied to

leave-to-appeal proceedings in criminal cases where the issue to be decided

was whether the applicant had demonstrated the existence of arguable grounds

which would justify hearing an appeal.  If, in these cases, the grounds

pleaded were in law legitimate grounds for an appeal and if they merited

further argument or consideration, leave was given; if one or other of these

conditions were lacking, leave was refused (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Monnell and

Morris judgment, loc. cit., pp. 21-22, paras. 54-57).

47.   As regards disputes concerning civil rights and obligations, Article 6

(Art. 6) was considered not to apply to proceedings before a Supreme Court

or a Constitutional Court, which determines, in a preliminary examination

and without entering on the merits of the case, whether or not the

conditions for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled (No. 6916/75,

Dec. 12.3.76, loc. cit.; No. 11826/85, Dec. 9.5.89, loc. cit. with further

reference).  In this respect, the Commission also recalls that Article 6

(Art. 6) is generally not applicable where a procedural obstacle did not

allow an examination on the merits (cf. No. 10865/84, Dec. 12.5.86, D.R. 47

p. 188, with further references).

48.   In the present case, the applicant's constitutional complaint was, in

substantial parts, not regarded as inadmissible due to a procedural mistake.

49.   The decision of the Second Chamber regarding the applicant's

constitutional complaint was based on the consideration that it did not

offer sufficient prospect of success, which constitutes an element of

admissibility under the relevant provisions of the Federal Constitutional

Court Act.  In reaching this conclusion the Second Chamber extended its

preliminary examination of the case to the merits of the applicant's

submissions and arguments.  Indeed, the Chamber addressed in detail various

substantial issues raised by the applicant, inter alia, whether or not the

Federal Court of Justice, in confirming the lawfulness of the changes in the

supplementary pensions statutes, had disregarded the constitutional right

to property.

50.   In these circumstances, the proceedings in question fall within the

scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

b.    Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

51.   The Commission considers that the relevant period to be considered

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) started on 11 July 1988, when the

Constitutional Court received the applicant's constitutional complaint.  The

proceedings terminated on 5 December 1991, when the Constitutional Court's

decision was served on the applicant.  The proceedings thus lasted

three years, four months and three weeks.

52.   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 (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of

20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).  On the latter point,

the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation has

to be taken into account (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Allenet de Ribemont judgment

of 10 February 1995, paras. 47, 57, to be published in Series A no. 308).

53.   According to the Government, the length of the period in question is

due to the workload of the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court in

general, and the lodging, over a period of two years following the

applicant's complaint, of altogether 24 complaints raising almost the same

pension issues.

54.   The Commission finds that the present case was not as such

particularly complex.  In this respect, the Commission observes in

particular that the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court decided not

to admit the applicant's constitutional complaint for a further examination

on the ground that it did not offer sufficient prospects of success.  While

the reasoning of this decision was rather detailed, the summary nature of

this procedure, which did not involve steps liable to lead to prolongations,

remains decisive.

55.   The applicant did not cause any delays in the proceedings.

56.   As regards the conduct of the Federal Constitutional Court, the

Government state that, at the relevant time, the Second Chamber of the

Constitutional Court had a particularly heavy work-load.  In July 1988 when

the applicant filed his constitutional complaint and in the following

two years, several other constitutional complaints on these matters were

lodged.  The major part of these altogether 24 cases were determined in

November 1991, including the applicant's complaint.  At the same time, the

Second Chamber had to conduct proceedings in more urgent cases concerning

inter alia the periods of notice regarding the dismissal of workers (decided

on 30 May 1990), the right of an employer to lock out workers in the course

of strikes (decided on 26 June 1991), and the constitutional complaints of

former civil servants of the German Democratic Republic regarding a

provision of the Unification Treaty terminating their contracts of

employment (decided on 24 April 1991).

57.   The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) imposes on

the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such

a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (Eur. Court H.R.,

Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17;

Pizzetti judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-C, p. 37, para. 18).

In this context weight must be attached not only to the special features of

constitutional proceedings, but also to the nature and general importance

of the matters raised in the cases before the Constitutional Court

(cf. Eur. Court H.R., Ruiz-Mateos judgment, loc. cit., p. 23, paras. 51-52).

58.   The Government point at the greater importance of other cases before

the Second Chamber.  The Commission observes, however, that the questions

raised in the applicant's constitutional complaint were not limited to his

individual situation, but related to the lawfulness of statutory amendments

to a Supplementary Pension Scheme which resulted in a reduction of

supplementary pension rights for a large number of employees in the German

civil service.

59.   It was in the first place for the Federal Constitutional Court to

adapt its procedure to the increasing number of such complaints, and to

ensure completion of the other proceedings pending before it, in particular

of the cases assigned to the Second Chamber.

60.   The Commission, examining the length of the proceedings in the present

case in the light of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention,

considers that Constitutional Court proceedings lasting almost three years

and five months and terminating with a decision not to admit the applicant's

complaint for insufficient prospect of success were too long.  In this

respect, the Commission took into account that, given the applicant's age,

what was at stake for him in the proceedings before the Federal

Constitutional Court was of pressing importance.  Consequently, the

Commission finds that the proceedings exceeded a reasonable time within the

meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      CONCLUSION

61.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation

of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission

      (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C. A. NØRGAARD)