Search
document

Document text Analytics

W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 11236/84 • ECHR ID: 001-548

Document date: July 18, 1986

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

W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 11236/84 • ECHR ID: 001-548

Document date: July 18, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

18 July 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 23 January 1984 by

M.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered

on 19 October 1984 under file No. 11236/84;

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 is a German citizen born in 1905 and resident in

Frankfurt. He is a lawyer and notary by profession.

In 1981, the applicant instituted civil proceedings at the Offenbach

District Court (Amtsgericht) against the former tenant of his

apartment in respect of which he claimed compensation for heating

expenses, for repairing the apartment and for the loss of one month's

rent. On 10 March 1982, the Offenbach District Court ordered the

former tenant to pay a certain amount of heating expenses. The

remaining claims were dismissed. The court held that the applicant's

account of the heating expenses was unclear. Moreover, even though

the former tenant had not completed the repair works the applicant had

not met the other conditions of the compensation claim.

On 27 April 1983, the Darmstadt Regional Court (Landgericht), upon the

applicant's appeal, ordered the former tenant to pay supplementary

interest, but dismissed the remainder of the appeal. In particular,

the Court held that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated

that the repair work concerned damages caused by the former tenant.

The applicant moreover had not substantiated that the loss of rent

resulted from the prolongation of the repair work. Finally the

Regional Court also considered the applicant's reply to submissions by

the defendant before the District Court which had allegedly been filed

out of time. The Regional Court concluded that the applicant had

still not substantiated his further claims.

On 25 September 1983, the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) dismissed the applicant's constitutional

complaint as offering no prospects of success. The court ruled in

particular that the right to a fair hearing did not entail an

obligation for the respective courts to state their considerations in

regard of each single submission in the merits of a case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention that the civil proceedings before both the District and

Regional Court were unfair and partial. He alleges in particular that

the District Court based its decision on facts submitted by his

opponent out of time upon which he was not able to comment in time.

He furthermore complains that neither court had read the complete case

file and that thereby various facts supporting his claims were

omitted. He specially refers to a section of the tenancy agreement

that in his view renders his compensation claim well-founded, to a

reservation of further claims and to a reminder concerning a claim of

interest connected with the heating expenses.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention about the manner in which the civil proceedings were

conducted by the respective courts.

The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19)

of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the

obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention (see No. 6175/71, Dec. 7.7.75, D.R. 3 p. 77).

It is true that in the instant case the applicant also complains that

he had been denied a fair and impartial hearing as guaranteed by

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. He alleges in

particular that the courts accepted late submissions of his opponent

upon which the applicant had not been able to comment in time and that

they did not take cognisance of the complete case file.

However, the Commission finds no evidence to indicate that the

applicant who is himself a trained and practising lawyer could not

present his case properly or that the proceedings were otherwise

unfairly conducted by the respective courts. In particular the

applicant has not shown that the defendant's submissions before the

District Court, which had allegedly been filed out of time, contained

any new facts which the applicant had not been able to consider when

introducing his claim. Moreover, the Regional Court took the

applicant's reply to these submissions into account and nevertheless

held that the applicant's submissions as a whole did not justify his

remaining claims.

The applicant's complaints therefore do not generally disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention and in particular in the above Article (Art. 6).

It follows that the application as a whole is 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