Communicated on 5 August 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 4800/12 Andreas SCHULZ against Germany lodged on 8 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Andreas Schulz, is a German national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Zeesen near Berlin. He is represented before the Court by Mr I.-J. Tegebauer , a lawyer practising in Trier.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. The applicant has a son, born in 2004, who lives with his mother in Brühl in North Rhine- Westfalia .

4 . He filed an application with the Berlin Tempelhof-Kreuzberg District Court to be granted contact with his son.

5 . On 10 August 2009 (file no. 198 F 7022/09) he was granted contact with his son every third week from Thursday to Sunday.

6 . The applicant appealed against this decision with the aim of obtaining contact with his son every four weeks for one whole week.

7 . On 9 October 2009 the Berlin Court of Appeal ( Kammergericht ) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

8 . On 9 November 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Berlin Constitutional Court.

9 . On 13 November 2009 the Berlin Constitutional Court confirmed receipt of the constitutional complaint.

10 . On 21 April 2010 the Berlin Constitutional Court notified the applicant that the original case file had been sent to the District Court of Brühl and that due to the high amount of pending cases no date for a decision could be scheduled.

11 . On 24 June 2010 the Berlin Constitutional Court notified the applicant that the original case file had been sent once more to the District Court of Brühl for a pending motion.

1 2 . On 23 January 2011 the applicant asked about the state of proceedings.

1 3 . On 25 January 2011 the applicant was informed that the original case file had been sent again to the District Court – family matters – of Brühl .

14 . On 1 November 2011 the applicant asked again about the state of proceedings.

15 . On 20 December 2011 the Berlin Constitutional Court informed the applicant that there were doubts as to the admissibility of the complaint.

16 . On 24 January 2012 the Berlin Constitutional Court, referring to the reasons set out in its previous letter, dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as being inadmissible (file no. VerfGH 132/09).

B. Relevant domestic law

17 . The Federal Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations ( Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren ), which entered into force on 3 December 2011, introduced general provisions for a remedy against protracted court proceedings which have been incorporated in chapter 17 of the Courts Act ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ).

18 . Art. 12, 13 of the Courts Act declare the Courts Act applicable to the ordinary jurisdiction.

19 . Section 15 of the Law on the Procedure before the Berlin Constitutional Court provides:

“As far as this act does not provide otherwise, the provisions of chapters fourteen and sixteen of the Courts Act apply mutatis mutandis regarding the public, the court police, the court language, the deliberation und the voting.” (“ Soweit in diesem Gesetz nichts anderes bestimmt ist, sind hinsichtlich der Öffentlichkeit, der Sitzungspolizei, der Gerichtssprache, der Beratung und der Abstimmung die Vorschriften der Titel 14 bis 16 des Gerichtsverfassungsgesetzes entsprechend anzuwenden “).

20 . This law does not contain a reference to chapter 17 of the Courts Act.

COMPLAINTS

21 . The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court. He further complains that the German law does not provide for an effective legal remedy against the excessive length of proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court. He argues, in particular, that the remedy against protracted court proceedings does not apply to proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about the length of the proceedings before the Berlin Constitutional Court, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?