Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16958/90

by Abdulkadir SAHINLER

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 September 1992, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 29 December 1989

by Abdulkadir SAHINLER against the Federal Republic of Germany and

registered on 31 July 1990 under file No. 16958/90;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant, born in 1933, is a Turkish national and resident

in Berlin. He is a teacher by profession. Before the Commission he

is represented by Mr. Deumeland, residing in Berlin.

In September 1983 the applicant informed his employer, the Land

Berlin, that he had had an accident while teaching. He submitted that

on 12 September 1983 a pupil had misbehaved in class and upset him so

much that since then he had been unfit to work.

On 26 March 1984 the Land Berlin, having heard several doctors

and a psychiatric expert, refused to pay the applicant allowances under

the Industrial Accident Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Unfall-

versicherung) on the ground that the event of 12 September 1983 could

not be considered as accident. The applicant's appeal (Widerspruch)

was dismissed on 6 July 1984.

On 29 July 1984 the applicant filed an action with the Berlin

Social Court (Sozialgericht) against the Land Berlin, represented by

the Berlin Industrial Accident Insurance Office (Eigenunfall-

versicherung) claiming that the insulting remarks of the pupil

concerned had caused his illness. In these proceedings the applicant

was represented by Mr. Deumeland.

On 4 February 1985 the Berlin Social Court dismissed the

applicant's action. The Social Court found in particular that the

applicant could not claim payments under the Industrial Accident

Insurance Scheme in respect of the event of 12 September 1983, as he

had not suffered an industrial accident within the meaning of the

relevant provisions of the Reich Insurance Code (Reichsunfall-

versicherungsgesetz). The incident could only be regarded as a

bagatelle and not as a decisive cause for any health problems which he

suffered.

The judgment was served upon the applicant on 6 March 1985.

On 7 March 1985 the applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) with the

Berlin Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht). In these

proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr. M., a lawyer

practising in Berlin, as well as by Mr. Deumeland.

On 29 January 1989 the Berlin Social Court of Appeal dismissed

the applicant's appeal. The Social Court of Appeal considered that the

applicant had failed to show that he had suffered from an industrial

accident within the meaning of the Reich Insurance Code, in particular

that on 12 September 1983 a pupil had gravely insulted him and thereby

caused a health problem. In this respect, the Social Court of Appeal

proceeded from a medical report of 3 June 1985 and the testimony of

witnesses, who had been heard on 5 November 1987 and 4 February 1988.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had commented

upon the testimony of the witnesses and requested to take further

evidence; however, he had failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's

instruction to specify the further evidence to be taken. The Berlin

Social Court of Appeal did not grant leave to appeal on points of law

(Revision) to the Federal Social Court of Appeal (Bundessozialgericht).

On 6 April 1989 the judgment of 29 January 1989 was served upon

the applicant by deposit at the Berlin 36 Post Office.

On 21 June 1989 the Federal Social Court declared the applicant's

request for leave to appeal on points of law (Nichtzulassungs-

beschwerde) inadmissible on the ground that he had failed duly to

substantiate the reasons for appeal. The envisaged appeal did not

raise any question of fundamental importance, nor any procedural

defects. In particular, the applicant had not shown that the refusal

of the Berlin Social Court of Appeal to postpone the hearing, scheduled

for 26 January 1989, had been unjustified. According to the record of

this hearing, the applicant had been represented by Mr. M., who had not

requested to postpone the hearing on the ground that Mr. Deumeland

could not attend it.

The Federal Social Court's decision was served upon the applicant

on 4 July 1989.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the social court proceedings.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the

refusal of the industrial accident allowances. He considers that the

social court proceedings were unfair, in particular in that the Berlin

Social Court of Appeal refused to postpone a hearing although one of

his two representatives, namely Mr. Deumeland, could not attend the

hearing. Furthermore, he complains under Article 14 of the Convention

that he was discriminated against on the ground of his Turkish

nationality.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 29 December 1989 and registered

on 31 July 1990.

On 2 July 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the

application as regards the complaint about the length of the

proceedings.

The observations were submitted by the respondent Government on

11 October 1991. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted

on 10 January 1992.

On 2 December 1991 the Commission decided to refer the case to

a Chamber.

THE LAW

1. The applicant considers that the social court proceedings

concerning his claim for an industrial accident allowance exceeded a

reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), so far as relevant,

provides:

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

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time

..."

The Government do not contest the admissibility of this

complaint. However, having regard to the complexity of the case and

the applicant's conduct, they find that the length of the social court

proceedings is not in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, namely the

complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the

competent authorities, and having regard to all the information in its

possession, that a thorough examination of this complaint is required,

both as to the law and as to the facts.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention that his claims for industrial accident allowances were

dismissed, and also of the alleged unfairness of the social court

proceedings concerned. He submits in particular that the Berlin Social

Court of Appeal refused to postpone a hearing although one of his two

representatives, namely Mr. Deumeland, could not attend the hearing.

Furthermore, he complains under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

that he was discriminated against on the ground of his Turkish

nationality. However, in respect of these complaints, the Commission

finds no appearance of a violation of the rights invoked by the

applicant. This part of the application is, therefore, 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 the applicant's complaint about

the length of the proceedings, without prejudging the merits of

the case;

- by a majority, DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the

application.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

Menu

SAHINLER v. GERMANY

SAHINLER v. GERMANY

LEXI