THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 68103/01 by Karsten TRIPPEL against Germany

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 14 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr I. Cabral Barreto , President ,

Mr G. Ress , Mr P. Kūris , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr J. Hedigan , Mrs M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska , Mr K. Traja , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Karsten Trippel, is a German national, who lives in Großbottwar, Germany. He is represented before the Court by Mr Christofer Lenz, a lawyer practising in Stuttgart.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.

The applicant owned four shares in a company, the MotoMeter AG. 99 % of this company’s shares were held by the company Robert Bosch GmbH.  On 6 July 1992, following a majority decision of the shareholders’ meeting, the MotoMeter AG sold all its company assets to a newly founded company, the MotoMeter GmbH, and was subsequently liquidated. The majority shareholder offered to buy the minority shareholders’ shares at a price of 615 DEM per share.

On 22 July 1992, the applicant and other private shareholders challenged the decision of 6 July 1992 before the Stuttgart Regional Court. They submitted that the main shareholder had circumvented rules aiming at the protection of minority shareholders inherent in the German Act on Stock Companies ( Aktiengesetz ). They further complained that the main shareholder’s offer was too low and that minority shareholders had not been able to buy parts of the assets.

On 22 January 1993, the Regional Court rejected the claim on the grounds that the decision in question was lawful and that there had been no violation of the applicant’s and other shareholders’ rights.

On 21 December 1993, the Stuttgart Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicant and the other minority shareholders.

On 5 December 1994, the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain their appeals on points of law.

On 12 January 1995, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. On 23 August 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain this complaint on the ground that, as he had only owned four shares of  the company, selling these shares at the price mentioned above did not pose an existential burden for him.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains about the national courts’ decisions to uphold the decision of the shareholders’ meeting of 6 July 1992 and that this discriminated him in his capacity as a minority shareholder. He also submits that the national courts failed to properly examine the facts of his case. He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as well as Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court were not concluded within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Article 6 § 1, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...everyone is entitled to a...hearing within a reasonable time...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.

2. As regards the remainder of the application, the Court, in the light of all the material in its possession, finds that the matters complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Ireneu C abral B arreto Registrar President