DAMM v. DENMARK
Doc ref: 22230/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2333
Document date: October 19, 1995
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22230/93
by Erik DAMM
against Denmark
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:
MM. H. DANELIUS, President
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
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 4 May 1993 by
Erik Damm against Denmark and registered on 13 July 1993 under file
No. 22230/93;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 21 June 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by
the applicant on 28 July 1994;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1941. He resides in
Copenhagen.
In April 1983 the applicant instituted proceedings in the High
Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) against his previous legal
counsel in order to obtain damages for alleged procedural errors
committed by counsel in a previous law-suit between the applicant and
a private company.
On 24 April 1991 the High Court dismissed the case as the
applicant had failed to comply with the Court's order to engage a
lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. This decision was quashed
by the Supreme Court (Højesteret) on 6 August 1991.
On 25 January 1995 the High Court dismissed the case once more,
now since the applicant had not provided the necessary security to
cover the costs of the court appointed counsel. The applicant did not
appeal against this decision.
While the applicant's civil suit was pending in the High Court
he wrote to the Ministry of Industry on 11 February 1993 and suggested
that the rules governing lawyers' liabilities be changed. However, the
Ministry replied on 4 March 1993 that this was a matter for the
Ministry of Justice to examine.
The applicant also contacted the Ministry of Justice suggesting
that the Ministry take certain initiatives in changing the rules
relating to lawyers' liabilities. On 22 October 1993 the Ministry
replied that it had taken note of the applicant's point of view but
found no reason to take any further action.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains of the length of the court proceedings
instituted by him in 1983. He submits that the case was not complex and
maintains that it was the defendant's strategy to exhaust him by
abusing the rules of procedure and thereby prolonging the proceedings.
The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains of the fact that the Ministries of
Justice and Industry refused to initiate any legislative changes,
although he pointed out that the rules governing lawyers' liabilities
were being abused. He invokes in this respect Article 1 of the
Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 4 May 1993 and registered on
13 July 1993.
On 6 April 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the
application in so far as it concerns the length of the proceedings and
invited the respondent Government to submit written observations on the
admissibility and merits thereof.
The Government submitted their observations on 21 June 1994. The
applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 28 July 1994.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings in the
High Court of Eastern Denmark and invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which, in so far as
relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
"In the determination of his civil rights ... everyone is
entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]
... tribunal ... ."
Article 13 (Art. 13)
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity."
With regard to the period of time to be considered the Commission
recalls that the proceedings commenced in April 1983 when the applicant
instituted proceedings in the High Court. They ended on 25 January 1995
when the High Court dismissed the case. Accordingly, the proceedings
lasted almost twelve years in one court.
The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria
established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question
of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the parties' conduct
and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the
information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the
complaint is required.
2. The applicant also complains, under Article 1 (Art. 1) of the
Convention, of the fact that the Ministries of Justice and Industry
refuse to initiate any legislative changes in respect of the rules
governing lawyers' liabilities.
After considering this complaint, as submitted by the applicant,
the Commission finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,
the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the
proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)