CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 décembre 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 1 December 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                    Mrs   G.H. THUNE                    Sir   Basil HALL                    Mr. F. MARTINEZ                      Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 14 February 1985 by J.M. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 19 June 1985 under file No. 11587/85;   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, born in 1924, is a Swiss national and resident in Zurich.   He is a businessman and joint partner of the Müller Pharma Kommanditgesellschaft, a limited partnership in Hamburg.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Bussmann, a lawyer practising in Hamburg.   In 1980, following an accident in the transport of goods to the Müller Pharma KG, the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Freiburg Regional Court (Landgericht) against the carrier claiming compensation for the material damage as well as the loss of profit. During these and the following proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer.   On 2 November 1981 the Regional Court ordered the carrier to compensate the material damage and dismissed the remainder of claims.   On 17 August 1983 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed both the applicant's and the carrier's appeal.   On 17 October 1984 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) decided not to accept the applicant's appeal on points of law (Revision).   The Court found that the case was of no fundamental importance.   Moreover, the appeal offered no prospect of success.   According to S. 554 (b) para. 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) in litigations concerning pecuniary claims of more than forty thousand German Marks, the court of appeal (Revisionsgericht) may refuse to accept the appeal (Revision) if the case is of no fundamental importance.   On 11 June 1980 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held that the Federal Court may only reject an appeal under S. 554 where it finds that it offers no prospects of success.   On 28 December 1984 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint as offering no prospect of success.   The Court found in particular that the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) did not require that detailed reasons were given in final decisions of courts of appeal.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice were unfair in that the Court incorrectly considered the appeal on points of law as being manifestly ill-founded and did not give detailed reasons for its decision of 17 October 1984.   THE LAW   The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that his appeal on points of law was wrongly rejected by the Federal Court of Justice.   With regard to the judicial decision of which the applicant complains, 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.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see e.g.   No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).   It is true that in this case the applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) that the proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice were unfair inasmuch as the Court did not give detailed reasons for its decision.   The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is in principle applicable to proceedings before courts of appeal or of cassation. However, the way in which it applies must clearly depend on the special features of such proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Axen judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 72 p. 12).   The Commission has already found that the absence of reasons in court decisions might under specific circumstances raise an issue as to the fairness of the respective proceedings.   However, if the relevant domestic law authorises an appeal court to reject an appeal on the ground that it raises no legal issue of fundamental importance and offers no prospect of success, it may be sufficient for that court simply to refer to the provision authorising this procedure (cf. No. 8769/79, Dec. 16.7.81, D.R. 25 p. 240).   In the instant case, the Commission observes that the Federal Court of Justice expressly stated the reasons of its decision, namely the lack of fundamental importance and of prospect of success.   The Commission considers that in these circumstances there is no appearance that the proceedings before the Federal Court, in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer, were unfair and thus violated the applicant's right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   It follows that the application 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.   Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the                                             Commission   (J. RAYMOND)                                 (C.A. NØRGAARD)