Search
document

Document text Analytics

P. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 12946/87 • ECHR ID: 001-314

Document date: March 9, 1988

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

P. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 12946/87 • ECHR ID: 001-314

Document date: March 9, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12946/87

by P.

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 9 March 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER 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 17 March 1987

by P. the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 26 May 1987

under file N° 12946/87;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 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

applicant, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant, a German national born in 1920, is a lawyer and

notary public practising in W. (North-Rhine Westphalia). Before the

Commission he is represented by his partner Dr. N.

In 1950 the applicant was admitted to the bars of the Werne

District Court (Amtsgericht) and of the Münster Regional Court

(Landgericht).

Following an administrative reorganisation in the Werne and

Münster areas the district of the Werne District Court, until then

part of the district of the Münster Regional Court, became part of the

district of the Dortmund Regional Court with effect from 1 January

1975. The applicant was then admitted to the bar of the Dortmund

Regional Court, and, for a transitional period expiring on 31 December

1984, continued to be admitted to the bar of the Münster Regional

Court, simultaneously.

His attempts to have his simultaneous admission to the Münster

Regional Court Bar extended after that date were to no avail. His

action was eventually dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice

(Bundesgerichtshof), sitting as a Bar Appeals Tribunal (Senat

für Anwaltssachen), on 10 November 1986. The Court found in particular

that the requirements under the Federal Lawyers Act (Bundesrechts-

anwaltsordnung) for the prolongation of such an admission were not

fulfilled in the applicant's case.

On 29 January 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to accept the applicant's

constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) on the ground that it

offered no prospects of success.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the reorganisation of the court

districts and the refusal of the German authorities to prolong his

simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court interfered with his

relationship to his clients and resulted in a decrease of his income

and the good will value of his practice. He considers that these

measures amount to inhumanity and violate his right to property under

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the German Court decisions not to

prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Bar following the

reorganisation of certain court districts amounts to inhumanity.

However, the Commission, while understanding that the

applicant's exclusion from the bar of a court to which he was admitted

for a considerable period of time may cause some hardship to him,

finds that there is nothing to suggest that this situation amounts to

an "inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention.

This part of the application must therefore be rejected as

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art.

27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1)to the Convention that the refusal of the German authorities to

prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court

violates his right to property.

It is true that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) secures to

everyone the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

However, in the present case, the Commission notes that

following the reorganisation of the court districts in 1975 the

applicant was only for a transitional period of ten years admitted

simultaneously to the Dortmund and the Münster Regional Court. After

expiry of this transitional period the applicant failed in his

attempt to have his admission to the Münster Bar prolonged.

The Commission finds that the applicant has not shown that he

had under German law and in particular the Federal Lawyers Act a right

to have that admission prolonged after the expiry of the transitional

period which might entitle him, with regard to the termination of this

admission, to invoke the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

It follows that this part of the application is also

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art.

27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant