CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 18 juillet 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 18 July 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         J.A. FROWEIN                         F. ERMACORA                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         H. VANDENBERGHE                     Sir Basil HALL                       Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 23 January 1984 by M.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 19 October 1984 under file No. 11236/84;   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 applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a German citizen born in 1905 and resident in Frankfurt.   He is a lawyer and notary by profession.   In 1981, the applicant instituted civil proceedings at the Offenbach District Court (Amtsgericht) against the former tenant of his apartment in respect of which he claimed compensation for heating expenses, for repairing the apartment and for the loss of one month's rent.   On 10 March 1982, the Offenbach District Court ordered the former tenant to pay a certain amount of heating expenses.   The remaining claims were dismissed.   The court held that the applicant's account of the heating expenses was unclear.   Moreover, even though the former tenant had not completed the repair works the applicant had not met the other conditions of the compensation claim.   On 27 April 1983, the Darmstadt Regional Court (Landgericht), upon the applicant's appeal, ordered the former tenant to pay supplementary interest, but dismissed the remainder of the appeal.   In particular, the Court held that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated that the repair work concerned damages caused by the former tenant. The applicant moreover had not substantiated that the loss of rent resulted from the prolongation of the repair work. Finally the Regional Court also considered the applicant's reply to submissions by the defendant before the District Court which had allegedly been filed out of time.   The Regional Court concluded that the applicant had still not substantiated his further claims.   On 25 September 1983, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as offering no prospects of success.   The court ruled in particular that the right to a fair hearing did not entail an obligation for the respective courts to state their considerations in regard of each single submission in the merits of a case.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the civil proceedings before both the District and Regional Court were unfair and partial.   He alleges in particular that the District Court based its decision on facts submitted by his opponent out of time upon which he was not able to comment in time. He furthermore complains that neither court had read the complete case file and that thereby various facts supporting his claims were omitted.   He specially refers to a section of the tenancy agreement that in his view renders his compensation claim well-founded, to a reservation of further claims and to a reminder concerning a claim of interest connected with the heating expenses.   THE LAW   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the manner in which the civil proceedings were conducted by the respective courts.   The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.   In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see No. 6175/71, Dec. 7.7.75, D.R. 3 p. 77).   It is true that in the instant case the applicant also complains that he had been denied a fair and impartial hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   He alleges in particular that the courts accepted late submissions of his opponent upon which the applicant had not been able to comment in time and that they did not take cognisance of the complete case file.   However, the Commission finds no evidence to indicate that the applicant who is himself a trained and practising lawyer could not present his case properly or that the proceedings were otherwise unfairly conducted by the respective courts.   In particular the applicant has not shown that the defendant's submissions before the District Court, which had allegedly been filed out of time, contained any new facts which the applicant had not been able to consider when introducing his claim.   Moreover, the Regional Court took the applicant's reply to these submissions into account and nevertheless held that the applicant's submissions as a whole did not justify his remaining claims.   The applicant's complaints therefore do not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article (Art. 6).   It follows that the application as a whole is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)