Communicated on 22 September 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 19555/10 David COISSON against Germany lodged on 9 April 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the decision of the European Patent Office not to recruit the applicant, an Italian national, as a patent examiner after he had successfully passed the professional tests as he was considered unfit for service because of his heart condition. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had not had access to any court to complain about a breach of his right not to be discriminated against on grounds of his disability.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the facts of which the applicant complains in the present case occur within the jurisdiction of Germany within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention in all respects?

In particular, having regard to the Court ’ s decision in the case of Klausecker v. Germany (no. 415/07, 6 January 2015) and to the Court ’ s case-law cited therein, was the protection of the applicant ’ s Convention rights by the European Patent Organisation manifestly deficient?

2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the (intended) proceedings in the present case?

In particular, did the applicant arguably have a “right” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1? And was that right to be classified as “civil” in nature for the purposes of that provision?

3. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, having regard to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 22 June 2006 (file no. 2 BvR 2093/05), referred to in the Court ’ s decision in the case of Klausecker (cited above, §§ 13 ss.), was a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?

4. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, when did the applicant receive the European Patent Office ’ s letter of 29 May 2008 informing him of the outcome of the recruitment procedure?

5. Did the applicant have access to a court to protect his civil rights, as required by Article 6 § 1?

In particular, having regard to the Court ’ s decision in the case of Klausecker (cited above) and assuming that the European Patent Organisation had immunity from jurisdiction of the German courts in the applicant ’ s case, was the limitation of the applicant ’ s right of access to court proportionate to the aim pursued thereby? Did the applicant have available to him reasonable alternative means to protect effectively his Convention rights , such as an internal appeal procedure within or an arbitration procedure offered by the European Patent Office or a review procedure before an international court, in particular, a complaint procedure before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization?

REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

It is further proposed that the applicant is requested, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit to the Court, within eight weeks of the communication of the present application, copies of the following documents:

- the applicant ’ s letter of 17 October 2008 to the European Ombudsman, including, if applicable, annexes;

- the applicant ’ s letter of 31 July 2009 to the European Patent Office, including, if applicable, annexes.