Search
document

Document text Analytics

D.F. v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 15116/89 • ECHR ID: 001-679

Document date: May 16, 1990

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

D.F. v. GERMANY

Doc ref: 15116/89 • ECHR ID: 001-679

Document date: May 16, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 15116/89

by H.F.

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 16 May 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

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

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

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 4 April 1989

by H.F. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered

on 15 June 1989 under file No. 15116/89;

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

parties, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant, born in 1932, is a German national and resident

in Berlin. In 1960 she married in London an Australian national of

Italian origin.

In May 1978 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings before

the Charlottenburg District Court (Amtsgericht). The proceedings also

covered the questions of the right to custody over the spouses' two

sons (however, the elder son attained his majority in October 1979; the

younger son in November 1982), and the splitting of their pension

rights (Versorgungsausgleich). In these proceedings the applicant was

represented by counsel.

Following various hearings and the taking of expert evidence

concerning the applicant's fitness to work, questions of British

matrimonial law, and the value of the defendant's assets and income,

the proceedings are still pending at first instance before the

Charlottenburg District Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention about the length of the proceedings before the

Charlottenburg District Court. She also invoked Article 3 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 4 April 1989 and registered

on 15 June 1989.

On 13 October 1989 the Commission decided to invite the

respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of

Procedure, to submit written observations on the admissibility and

merits of the application.

The Government's observations, according to which the

applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the

length of her divorce proceedings were well-founded, were submitted

after an extension of the time-limit on 26 January 1990.

By letter of 23 March 1990 the Agent of the respondent

Government informed the Commission that the parties had come

to the following agreement.

"1. Das Land Berlin zahlt der Beschwerdeführerin einen Betrag

von 12.000 DM (zwölftausend Deutsche Mark).

2. Die Beschwerdeführerin erklärt, daß damit alle jetzigen und

künftigen Ansprüche wegen der Dauer des Verfahrens über die

Scheidung von ihrem Ehemann [...] und über die Scheidungs-

folgen vor dem Amtsgericht Charlottenburg in Berlin

einschließlich der in diesem Zusammenhang entstandenen Kosten

vor nationalen Gerichten und vor der Europäischen Menschen-

rechtskommission abgegolten sind.

3. Die Beschwerdeführerin nimmt die Individualbeschwerde hiermit

zurück."

"1. The Land Berlin pays the applicant DM 12,000 (twelve thousand

German marks).

2. The applicant declares that this payment covers all present

and future claims in respect of the length of her divorce

action against her husband [...], including any costs incurred

in proceedings before domestic courts and the European

Commission of Human Rights.

3. The applicant withdraws her application."

The agreement was signed by the Agent on behalf of the

respondent Government on 9 March, and by the applicant on 13 March 1990.

Furthermore, the Agent informed the Commission that he had requested

the competent Berlin authorities to pay the applicant the amount of

DM 12,000.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that, in view of the above agreement, the

applicant no longer wishes to maintain her application within the

meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.

The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a

general character affecting the observance of the Convention which

necessitate the further examination of this case. The Commission

therefore accepts the applicant's request to withdraw her application.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant