CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 novembre 1990

.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. 16675/90                       by B. and S.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 November 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 23 November 1987 by B. and S. against the Federal and registered on 7 July 1990 under file No. 16675/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The first applicant, Ms. B., is a British citizen, born in 1929 in B., Romania, and living in Sao Paolo, Brazil.   The second applicant, Mr. S. is an Austrian citizen, born in 1933 and living in V.   He represents the first applicant.           Both applicants are the children and heirs of Bela Szabo, an Austrian citizen of Jewish origin who raised in March 1958 a claim for compensation for wine, pigs and various foodstuffs which had been confiscated in 1944 in Hungary by agents of the Nazi regime.   The claim was brought under the Federal Restitution Act (Bundesrück- erstattungsgesetz).           The claim was first dealt with by the Compensation Board (Wiedergutmachungsamt) of Berlin and subsequently by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Berlin, the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) of Berlin and the Supreme Restitution Court which on 8 December 1977 referred the case back to the Compensation Board.           After the applicants' father had died in 1978, the applicants pursued the proceedings.   On 2 May 1985, the Regional Court rejected the applicants' claim, but on 23 October 1985, the Court of Appeal referred parts of the case back to the Regional Court, while rejecting other parts of the applicants' claim.   On 20 May 1987, the Supreme Restitution Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that decision.           It appears that those parts of the case which were referred back to the Regional Court are still pending before that Court.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants mainly complain of the length of the proceedings and invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   They also argue that certain amendments to the restitution legislation are disadvantageous for them and violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.           The applicants complain of the length of certain court proceedings regarding compensation under the Federal Restitution Act. They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention which provides for a court determination within a reasonable time of disputes concerning civil rights and obligations.   THE LAW           The Commission has consistently held that Article 6 (Art. 6) is not   applicable to proceedings regarding compensation to victims of Nazi persecution under the special legislation enacted for that purpose in the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 10612/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 276; No. 10865/84, Dec. 12.5.86).   As regards claims based on the deprivation of specific property under the Federal Restitution Act, the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) has been left open in the Commission's previous case-law (Nos. 5573/72 and 5670/72, Dec. 16.7.76, D.R. 7 p. 8). However, in the present case, which concerns compensation for property of which the applicants' father was allegedly deprived in 1944 and which could no longer be recuperated, the Commission considers that the case-law relating to other claims for compensation for Nazi persecution should be applied mutatis mutandis.   Consequently, Article 6 (Art. 6) is not applicable to the proceedings of which the applicants complain.           The Commission is not called upon to decide if Article 6 (Art. 6) would be applicable if a claim under the Act in question concerned restitution of existing property in the Federal Republic of Germany.           Furthermore, insofar as the applicants' complain of legislative amendments the Commission finds no basis for considering that the applicants were thereby deprived of any property rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           It follows that the application has to be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention partly as being incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae and partly as being manifestly ill-founded.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission               (J. RAYMOND)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)