Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 18117/91

S.G.

against

Germany

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 19 January 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article

25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms by S.G. against Germany on 9 April 1991. The

application was registered on 24 April 1991 under file No. 18117/91.

The applicant was represented by Mr. U. Fischer, a lawyer

practising in Frankfurt am Main.

The Government of Germany were represented by their Agent,

Dr. Jens Meyer-Ladewig, Federal Ministry of Justice, Bonn.

2. On 14 April 1994 the Commission declared the application

admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28

para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

ofthe petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 19 January 1995 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is

confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

H. DANELIUS

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYUK

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

G. B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1960 and resident in

Fürth.

5. The applicant was working from 3 September 1979 to 2 March 1982

as an apprentice with a large car manufacturer. By letter of

15 October 1981 the company informed the applicant that it was not in

a position to offer him employment after the termination of his

apprenticeship. The applicant successfully finished his professional

training programme on 22 January 1982.

6. He then brought a Labour Court action against the company

requesting the court to find that his employment with the defendant

continued after 23 January 1982 and that he was to be given work as a

mechanic. He pointed out that all other apprentices had been given

contracts. He argued that the refusal in his case was arbitrary

because it constituted a sanction for having expressed a political

opinion. The applicant had in fact published an article in the journal

edited by the pupils of his professional training school. The article

related to a demonstration against the construction of a nuclear power

plant in Brokdorf.

7. On 23 March 1982 the Stuttgart Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht)

granted the action.

8. Following an appeal lodged by the defendant, the Regional Labour

Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) of Baden-Württemberg quashed the first

instance judgment on 16 September 1982 and dismissed the action.

9. An appeal on points of law (Revision) was rejected by the Federal

Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) on 5 April 1984.

10. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint arguing that

the decisions given against him violated the principle of equality

before the law and the right to protection of freedom of opinion.

11. On 19 May 1992 the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) quashed the judgments complained of

considering that they violated the applicant's right to freedom of

expression.

12. On 11 November 1992 the Federal Labour Court gave judgment in the

applicant's favour, the defendant having recognised his claim to be

well-founded (Anerkennungsurteil).

13. On 23 February 1993 the parties in the Labour Court proceedings

concluded a friendly settlement. The applicant's former employer

agreed to pay compensation in the amount of DM 80,000 for the

applicant's loss of earnings.

14. Before the Commission the applicant, invoking Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention, complained of the length of the court proceedings.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

15. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1

(b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals

they wished to make.

16. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on

the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the

possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

17. On 19 September 1994 the Commission submitted to the parties, at

the request of the respondent Government, a proposal for a friendly

settlement.

18. On 22 November 1994 the parties submitted an amended version of

this proposal which they had both adopted and signed and which reads

as follows:

[Translation]

" In the application No. 18117/91 introduced by S. G. the

parties, referring to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention

have, with the assistance of the European Commission of Human

Rights reached the following friendly settlement:

1. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany pays to

the applicant as settlement for all possible claims related to

the application including costs, a lump sum of DM 14,000.

2. The applicant declares his above mentioned application to

be without object.

3. The applicant renounces all possible further claims against

the Federal Republic of Germany or against a Federal State which

are connected with the object of the application."

[German]

" In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 18117/91 des

Beschwerdeführers S. G. veständigen sich die Parteien unter

Bezugnahme auf Art. 28 Abs. 1 (b) der Europäischen Konvention zum

Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter

Mitwirkung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die

nachstehende gütliche Einigung:

1. Die Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zahlt dem

Beschwerdeführer als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaigen Ansprüche

im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Individualbeschwerde

einschließlich der Kosten einen Betrag von 14.000, --DM.

2. Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt seine obengenannte Beschwerde

als erledigt.

3. Der Beschwerdeführer verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung

etwaiger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Bundesrepublik

Deutschland oder gegen ein Bundesland, die mit dem Gegenstand der

Beschwerde zusammenhängen."

19. At its session on 19 January 1995, the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

20. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

S.G. v. GERMANY

S.G. v. GERMANY

LEXI