Search
document

Document text Analytics

ECKLE AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 8130/78 • ECHR ID: 001-55421

Document date: December 7, 1984

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

ECKLE AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 8130/78 • ECHR ID: 001-55421

Document date: December 7, 1984

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in the Eckle case, delivered on 15 July 1982 and 21 June 1983 and

transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case had its origin in an application against the

Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the European Commission of

Human Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by two German

nationals, Mr Hans Eckle and his wife Marianne, in which they claimed

that the length of the proceedings brought in Trier, Saarbrücken and

Cologne gave rise to a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of

the convention, Mr Eckle relying on Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3),

complaining in addition of his detention on remand and both applicants

alleging violation of Article 6, paragraph 2 (art. 6-2), on account of

the refusal to reimburse their expenses in the Cologne proceedings;

Whereas on 10 May 1979 the Commission declared the application

admissible as far as the alleged failure to observe the "reasonable

time" in the Trier and Cologne cases was concerned and declared the

other complaints inadmissible either as being out of time or for

non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and whereas in its report adopted

on 11 December 1980, the Commission expressed the unanimous opinion

that there had been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of

the convention;

Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the

European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas in its judgment of 15 July 1982, the Court unanimously;

- joins to the merits the preliminary plea raised by the Government,

but rejects it after an examination on the merits;

- holds that there has been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1), of the convention;

- holds that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50)

is not ready for decision;

Whereas in its judgment of 21 June 1983, the Court unanimously:

- holds that the respondent State is to pay to each of the applicants

nine thousand, six hundred and forty-one marks and ten pfennigs

(9 641.10 DM) in respect of costs and expenses and rejects the

remainder of the claims for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54

(art. 54) of the convention";

Having invited the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to

inform it of the measures taken in consequence of the judgments,

having regard to its obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the

convention to abide by the judgments;

Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of

Ministers, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany informed

the Committee of Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the

judgments, which information is summarised in the appendix to this

resolution,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the

Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, that it has exercised

its function under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (84) 5

Information provided by the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany during the examination of the Eckle case before the

Committee of Ministers

In view of the cost claims of the German courts which were determined

with final and binding effect, the authorities of the Federal Republic

of Germany have levied execution and transferred for execution the sum

of 9 641.10 DM awarded to each of the applicants by the judgment of

the Court of 21 June 1983, with the effect that the outstanding claims

against the applicants are reduced by the amount of the confiscated

sums.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant