Search
document

Document text Analytics

B. and S. v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 16675/90 • ECHR ID: 001-774

Document date: November 8, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

B. and S. v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 16675/90 • ECHR ID: 001-774

Document date: November 8, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16675/90

by B. and S.

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 8 November 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 23 November 1987

by B. and S. against the Federal and registered on 7 July 1990 under

file No. 16675/90;

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 first applicant, Ms. B., is a British citizen,

born in 1929 in B., Romania, and living in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The

second applicant, Mr. S. is an Austrian citizen, born in 1933

and living in V. He represents the first applicant.

Both applicants are the children and heirs of Bela Szabo, an

Austrian citizen of Jewish origin who raised in March 1958 a claim for

compensation for wine, pigs and various foodstuffs which had been

confiscated in 1944 in Hungary by agents of the Nazi regime. The

claim was brought under the Federal Restitution Act (Bundesrück-

erstattungsgesetz).

The claim was first dealt with by the Compensation Board

(Wiedergutmachungsamt) of Berlin and subsequently by the Regional

Court (Landgericht) of Berlin, the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) of

Berlin and the Supreme Restitution Court which on 8 December 1977

referred the case back to the Compensation Board.

After the applicants' father had died in 1978, the applicants

pursued the proceedings. On 2 May 1985, the Regional Court rejected

the applicants' claim, but on 23 October 1985, the Court of Appeal

referred parts of the case back to the Regional Court, while rejecting

other parts of the applicants' claim. On 20 May 1987, the Supreme

Restitution Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that

decision.

It appears that those parts of the case which were referred

back to the Regional Court are still pending before that Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants mainly complain of the length of the

proceedings and invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. They also

argue that certain amendments to the restitution legislation are

disadvantageous for them and violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The applicants complain of the length of certain court

proceedings regarding compensation under the Federal Restitution Act.

They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention which provides for a

court determination within a reasonable time of disputes concerning

civil rights and obligations.

THE LAW

The Commission has consistently held that Article 6 (Art. 6)

is not applicable to proceedings regarding compensation to victims of

Nazi persecution under the special legislation enacted for that

purpose in the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 10612/83, Dec.

10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 276; No. 10865/84, Dec. 12.5.86). As regards

claims based on the deprivation of specific property under the Federal

Restitution Act, the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) has been left

open in the Commission's previous case-law (Nos. 5573/72 and

5670/72, Dec. 16.7.76, D.R. 7 p. 8). However, in the present case,

which concerns compensation for property of which the applicants'

father was allegedly deprived in 1944 and which could no longer be

recuperated, the Commission considers that the case-law relating to

other claims for compensation for Nazi persecution should be applied

mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) is not applicable

to the proceedings of which the applicants complain.

The Commission is not called upon to decide if Article 6

(Art. 6) would be applicable if a claim under the Act in question

concerned restitution of existing property in the Federal Republic of

Germany.

Furthermore, insofar as the applicants' complain of

legislative amendments the Commission finds no basis for considering

that the applicants were thereby deprived of any property rights

contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

It follows that the application has to be rejected in

accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention

partly as being incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae and

partly as being manifestly ill-founded.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant