CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 mars 1988

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12946/87                       by P.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 March 1988, the following members being present:                MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 17 March 1987 by P. the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 26 May 1987 under file N° 12946/87;           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, a German national born in 1920, is a lawyer and notary public practising in W. (North-Rhine Westphalia).   Before the Commission he is represented by his partner Dr. N.           In 1950 the applicant was admitted to the bars of the Werne District Court (Amtsgericht) and of the Münster Regional Court (Landgericht).           Following an administrative reorganisation in the Werne and Münster areas the district of the Werne District Court, until then part of the district of the Münster Regional Court, became part of the district of the Dortmund Regional Court with effect from 1 January 1975.   The applicant was then admitted to the bar of the Dortmund Regional Court, and, for a transitional period expiring on 31 December 1984, continued to be admitted to the bar of the Münster Regional Court, simultaneously.           His attempts to have his simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court Bar extended after that date were to no avail.   His action was eventually dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), sitting as a Bar Appeals Tribunal (Senat für Anwaltssachen), on 10 November 1986.   The Court found in particular that the requirements under the Federal Lawyers Act (Bundesrechts- anwaltsordnung) for the prolongation of such an admission were not fulfilled in the applicant's case.           On 29 January 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to accept the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) on the ground that it offered no prospects of success.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the reorganisation of the court districts and the refusal of the German authorities to prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court interfered with his relationship to his clients and resulted in a decrease of his income and the good will value of his practice.   He considers that these measures amount to inhumanity and violate his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the German Court decisions not to prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Bar following the reorganisation of certain court districts amounts to inhumanity.           However, the Commission, while understanding that the applicant's exclusion from the bar of a court to which he was admitted for a considerable period of time may cause some hardship to him, finds that there is nothing to suggest that this situation amounts to an "inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.           This part of the application must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)to the Convention that the refusal of the German authorities to prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court violates his right to property.           It is true that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) secures to everyone the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.           However, in the present case, the Commission notes that following the reorganisation of the court districts in 1975 the applicant was only for a transitional period of ten years admitted simultaneously to the Dortmund and the Münster Regional Court.   After expiry of this transitional period the applicant failed in his attempt to have his admission to the Münster Bar prolonged.           The Commission finds that the applicant has not shown that he had under German law and in particular the Federal Lawyers Act a right to have that admission prolonged after the expiry of the transitional period which might entitle him, with regard to the termination of this admission, to invoke the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           It follows that this part of the application is also 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)