Search
document

Document text Analytics

HÄUSSLER v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 20457/92 • ECHR ID: 001-3240

Document date: September 4, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

HÄUSSLER v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 20457/92 • ECHR ID: 001-3240

Document date: September 4, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20457/92

by Hermann HÄUSSLER

against Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 September 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 27 July 1992 by

Hermann HÄUSSLER against Germany and registered on 10 August 1992 under

file No. 20457/92;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the Commission's decision of 22 February 1995

to communicate the applicant's complaint about the length of the

proceedings and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the

application;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 2 May 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 16 June 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1921, is a German national and resident

in Munich.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant, who was employed in the German civil service,

receives a supplementary pension (Versorgungsrente), which is

administered by the Supplementary Pensions Office (Versorgungsanstalt

des Bundes und der Länder). In 1982 and 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 30 April 1985 the Supplementary Pensions Office informed the

applicant that his supplementary pension had been recalculated on the

basis of its amended statutes. The applicant, represented by counsel,

brought an action against the Supplementary Pensions Office claiming

payment of his original pension on 1 August 1985.

On 14 February 1986 the Karlsruhe Regional Court (Landgericht)

dismissed the applicant's action.

On 3 November 1988 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal

(Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.

On 20 September 1989 the Federal Court of Justice

(Bundesgerichtshof) did not admit his appeal on points of law.

On 6 November 1991 a group of three judges at the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to admit the

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

offer sufficient prospect of success. On 6 December 1991 the decision

was served upon the applicant's counsel, who forwarded it to the

applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about

the length of the proceedings regarding his supplementary pension.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was registered on 10 August 1992.

On 22 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the

respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.

The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

On 2 May 1995 the Government submitted their observations. The

applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 16 June 1995.

THE LAW

The applicant complains about the length of the court proceedings

regarding his supplementary pension.

The Government have addressed the question of whether the

applicant lodged his above complaint within the period of six months

under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

According to Article 26 (Art. 26), the Commission may only deal

with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and

within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision

was taken.

The Commission notes that the decision of the Federal

Constitutional Court of 6 November 1991, rejecting the applicant's

constitutional complaint, was served upon the applicant's counsel on

6 December 1991. Accordingly, the period of six months under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention expired on 6 June 1992 (cf.,

mutatis mutandis, No. 14056/88, Dec. 28.5.91, D.R. 70 p. 208; No.

22714/93, Dec. 27.11.95, not published). The Commission further

observes that the applicant's counsel forwarded a copy of the decision

to the applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.

The Commission finds that, in his correspondence prior to

expiration of the relevant time-limit, the applicant did not raise,

either expressly or in substance, his complaint about the length of

the court proceedings. However, as regards complaints not included in

the initial application, the Commission recalls that the running of the

period of six months is not interrupted until the date when the

complaint is first submitted to the Commission (cf., No. 10293/83,

Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 41; No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48

p. 106). The applicant first lodged this complaint in his application

form submitted on 20 July 1992, i.e. more than six months after the

final decision.

Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose any

particular circumstance which could have interrupted or suspended the

running of time during this period of six months.

It follows that the applicant's complaint about the length of the

court proceedings has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in

accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant