CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 31 mai 1991

.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 }  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   FIRST CHAMBER   Application No. 14365/88   Berta MAAS   against   the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 31 May 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  PAGE   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 17) ....................................... 1 - 2           A.       The application                 (paras. 2 - 3) ...............................     1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 4 - 12) ..............................   1 - 2           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 13 - 17) .............................     2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 18 - 75) .....................................   3 - 10           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 18 - 68) .............................   3 - 9           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (para. 69 - 75) ..............................   9 - 10     III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras.   76 - 93) .................................... 11 - 13           A.       Complaint declared admissible                 (para. 76) ...................................    11           B.       Point at issue                 (para. 77) ...................................    11           C.       Article 6 para. 1   of the Convention                 (paras. 78 - 93) ............................. 11 - 13       APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................    14   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............    15   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The applicant, born in 1951, is a German national and resident in Wiesbaden.         The application is directed against the Federal Republic of Germany whose Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   J. Meyer-Ladewig, Ministerialdirigent, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.   3.        The application concerns complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning a matter related to the applicant's divorce action, i.e. the apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during their marriage.   The proceedings started in January 1978 and have not yet been completed.     B.       The proceedings   4.       The application was introduced on 23 September 1988 and registered on 8 November 1988.   5.       On 14 April 1989 the Commission decided to invite the respondent Government to submit their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   6.       The Government's observations were submitted after an extension of the time-limit on 11 August 1989.   The applicant's observations in reply of 29 September 1989 were received on 3 October 1989.   7.       By letter of 3 November 1989 the Government requested a time-limit of six weeks for the submission of further observations. The President of the Commission acceded to this request.   The Government's further observations were dated 15 December 1989.   The applicant replied on 2 January 1990.   8.       On 7 May 1990 the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.       The text of this decision was communicated to the parties on 1 August 1990.   Additional observations were submitted by the Government on 21 September 1990.   The applicant replied on 31 October 1990.   10.      On 7 November 1990 the Commission decided to refer the case to the First Chamber.   11.      Further submissions were made by the Government on 2 November 1990.   The applicant commented on 26 November 1990 and submitted additional observations on 3 January 1991.   12.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Consultation with the parties took place between 3 May 1990 and 3 January 1991.   The Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.       C.       The present Report   13.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber                   J. A. FROWEIN                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   J. C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   C. L. ROZAKIS                   L. LOUCAIDES                   A. V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   B. MARXER   14.      The text of this Report was adopted on 31 May 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found         disclose a breach by the State concerned of its         obligations under the Convention.   16.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   17.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the case   18.      In 1977 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings before the Wiesbaden District Court (Amtsgericht).   She also requested payment of a monthly alimony and adjustment of the spouses' pension rights (Versorgungsausgleich).   In these and the following proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel.   19.      On 4 January 1978, in the context of the divorce proceedings, the applicant instituted an action in two stages (Stufenklage), requesting her husband to supply information about his assets at the end of the marriage (Endvermögen) in order to prepare her claims for apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during the marriage (Zugewinnausgleich), and to pay the resulting amount.   20.      On 22 August 1978 the Wiesbaden District Court dismissed the applicant's divorce action.   The Court, having heard the parties in October and December 1977 and July 1978, found that the applicant had failed to prove the conditions for divorce under S. 1565 and S. 1566 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).   The judgment was served upon the parties on 29 August 1978.   21.      On 27 September 1978 the applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung) with the Frankfurt Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) against the District Court's judgment and, after an extension of the time-limit, she filed the reasons for the appeal on 27 November 1978.   22.      On 6 February 1979 the Frankfurt Court of Appeal, having heard the parties on 23 January 1979, quashed the judgment of 22 August 1978 and sent the case back to the District Court.   The Court of Appeal found that the marriage had broken down within the meaning of S. 1565 para. 1 of the Civil Code.   It had in particular regard to the defendant's submissions at the hearing according to which the matrimonial community did no longer exist and could not possibly be restored.   Furthermore, the Court of Appeal considered that, though the defendant had various health problems and, in particular, as a Roman Catholic wished to continue the marriage, the divorce would not entail any undue hardships requiring the maintenance of the marriage under S. 1568 of the Civil Code.   In this respect, the Court also noted that the period of five years under S. 1568 para. 2 of the Civil Code for maintaining a marriage had almost expired.   It did not itself grant divorce on the ground that other matters related to divorce (Scheidungsfolgesachen), i.e. claims for alimony, apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets and adjustment of their pension rights, were still pending before the District Court.   23.      On 29 November 1979 the Wiesbaden District Court granted divorce of the applicant's marriage.   It also decided upon the adjustment of the spouses' pension rights in that, under the German Old Age Pension Scheme, certain pension rights were created for the applicant to the debit of her divorced husband.   These main divorce proceedings were finally terminated on 31 October 1980.   24.      In March, April, May and June 1980, in the proceedings concerning the apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets, the applicant repeatedly requested the Wiesbaden District Court to fix a date for an oral hearing.   25.      On 23 July 1980 the applicant complained that no hearing had been fixed in the meantime and that the Court was apparently biased.   26.      In a note of 22 August 1980 the competent Judge 0 at the Wiesbaden District Court declared his withdrawal from the case on the ground of bias.   This withdrawal was declared inadmissible by the Wiesbaden Regional Court (Landgericht) on 26 August 1980.   27.      On 22 September 1980 the applicant confirmed that she had intended to challenge the Judge O.   In October 1980 the case was assigned to Judge R at the District Court.   28.      On 7 November 1980 the Wiesbaden District Court resumed the proceedings, which at that stage concerned in particular the question of the parties' matrimonial regime, and then held a hearing on 24 February 1981.   29.      On 2 March 1981 the defendant filed a list of his assets at the end of the marriage (1 September 1977).   On 31 March 1981 the District Court questioned the defendant upon his assets.   The Court fixed 24 April as a date for the next hearing, when the defendant was supposed to give an affidavit (eidesstattliche Versicherung) as to the correctness of his list of assets.   30.      At the hearing of 24 April 1981 the defendant's counsel informed the Court that his client could not be present due to illness.   The hearing was adjourned.   In June 1981, upon its inquiry, the Court was informed that the defendant was still ill.   On 5 August 1981 the applicant's counsel informed the Court that he had seen the defendant in other court proceedings.   31.      On 5 September 1981 the Court fixed 13 October as the date for the next hearing.   At that hearing the defendant gave the affidavit in question.   32.      At the next hearing on 17 November 1981 the applicant, having calculated on the basis of the defendant's information an overall claim for apportionment of DM 584,883, requested the District Court to order the defendant to pay a partial amount of DM 200,000. In his memorandum in reply of 17 December 1981, the defendant requested the Court to dismiss the action and lodged counter-claims, namely for a declaratory judgment that the applicant had no further claims for apportionment, and for a decision that she had to supply information about her assets at the end of the marriage.   33.      On 29 December 1981 the Wiesbaden District Court, noting these submissions, ordered that evidence be taken as regards the increase in value of the defendant's real estate at Heddesheim, and on the question whether the defendant had transferred some property in Heidelberg without any or any appropriate payment.   34.      On 22 March 1982 the District Court sent the files to the expert S who had been appointed to estimate the value of the defendant's real estate at Heddesheim.   35.      On 27 September 1982 the expert S submitted his opinion.   On 20 October 1982 the defendant accepted the opinion in general, whereas the applicant lodged objections on 22 November 1982.   The expert S filed his comments upon the applicant's submissions on 23 February 1983.   On 3 March 1983 the Court sent these comments to the parties and informed them that it intended to summon them and the expert for a hearing.   36.      On 24 August 1983 the District Court informed the parties that further proceedings would require the applicant's statements as to her assets at the beginning and end of the marriage.   In any event the case could be discontinued, as the parties had not pursued it for over six months.   37.      On 27 October 1983 the District Court fixed 29 November 1983 as the date for the next hearing.   At that date the Court heard witnesses, in particular on the issue of the transfer of property. The applicant commented upon the taking of evidence on 27 January 1984.   38.      On 14 February 1984 the District Court heard the expert S about the applicant's objections to his expert opinion.   Furthermore the applicant filed a declaration of her assets at the end of the marriage.   39.      On 14 March 1984 the defendant requested the District Court to order the applicant to give an affidavit that her declaration concerning her assets was correct and complete.   40.      On 30 March 1984 the Wiesbaden District Court, in a partial judgment, ordered the applicant to provide the defendant with a list of her assets at the end of the marriage and supporting documents.   The Court considered that the applicant had failed properly to specify her assets.   The judgment was served upon the parties on 11 April 1984.   41.      On 10 May 1984 the applicant lodged an appeal.   She filed the reasons after an extension of the time-limit on 10 July 1984.   42.      On 8 November 1984 the Frankfurt Court of Appeal, having heard the parties on 26 October 1984, quashed the judgment of 30 March 1984 and sent the case back to the District Court.   The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had failed to consider the defendant's request of 14 March 1984 for an affidavit as to the correctness of the applicant's declaration of her assets.   43.      On 30 November 1984 the files were returned to the District Court.   The parties made further submissions in October 1984 and February 1985.   Moreover, the applicant, having consulted the case files, filed additional observations concerning the matrimonial regime and her claim for apportionment on 11 April 1985.   44.      The District Court held a further hearing on 16 April 1985. The defendant was given the opportunity to reply to the applicant's submissions of 11 April, and 10 July 1985 was fixed as date for passing the judgment.   The applicant made further submissions on 26 April and 28 June 1985, which had not been authorised by the Court.   45.      On 10 July 1985 the Wiesbaden District Court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant DM 39,840 with interest.   It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims.   46.      The Court found in particular that a contract between the parties of 1971, where they had agreed upon the matrimonial regime with an apportionment of the increase of the spouses' assets at the end of the marriage (Zugewinngemeinschaft), was valid.   The defendant had not been incapable of entering into legal transactions (geschäfts- unfähig) at the time in question.   47.      Moreover, the Court estimated the value of the spouses' assets on the basis of the parties' submissions and the evidence taken, in particular the opinion of the expert S and the testimony of the witnesses.   Furthermore, the Court had regard to an expert opinion, which had been prepared by the expert Sch under the terms of a friendly settlement concluded by the parties on 22 March and 2 June 1982 in the course of maintenance proceedings.   The opinion concerned the value of two houses, in respect of which the parties had exchanged their ownership in the friendly settlement.   48.      The judgment was served upon the defendant on 16 July and upon the applicant on 17 July 1985.   The applicant lodged an appeal with the Frankfurt Court of Appeal on 8 August and filed the reasons on 11 October 1985.   The defendant appealed on 16 August and submitted the reasons for his appeal on 14 October 1985.   49.      On 7 January 1986 the Frankfurt Court of Appeal, having heard the parties, quashed the judgment of 10 July 1985 and sent the case back to the Wiesbaden District Court.   The Court of Appeal found that the proceedings before the District Court were marred by an essential defect within the meaning of S. 539 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozeßordnung), in that the District Court had failed to decide upon the defendant's counter-claim for a declaration that the applicant had no further claims for apportionment of assets.   The Court of Appeal could not itself decide upon this issue as the proceedings were to this extent still pending before the District Court.   It considered that the efficiency of the proceedings could not justify an exception as the District Court ought to investigate further and possibly take evidence on the value of particular plots of land.   The Court of Appeal also instructed the District Court to examine whether the expert Sch had properly estimated the value of the two houses under the friendly settlement of 1982.   50.      On 3 July 1986 the files were sent back to the Wiesbaden District Court.   51.      On 19 August 1986 the applicant requested the Presidency (Präsidium) of the Wiesbaden District Court to determine the competent judge.   On 1 September 1986 the case was assigned to Judge H.   52.      In the next oral hearing of 4 November 1986 the Wiesbaden District Court made proposals as to a friendly settlement of the case on the basis of an overall payment of DM 165,000 to the applicant. The defendant accepted on 21 November 1986.   On 25 November 1986 the Court postponed a further hearing in order to allow the applicant to comment upon the friendly settlement proposals.   The applicant refused the proposals and submitted in particular that she had already refused a similar proposal in the appeal proceedings on 7 January 1986.   53.      At the hearing on 9 December 1986 the Wiesbaden District Court decided that expert evidence should be taken on the value of several plots of land inherited by the defendant and of a plot of land in Heidelberg.   The parties were invited to propose an expert within three weeks.   The Court also requested the parties to submit supplementary information concerning their assets.   54.      On 22 January 1987 the Wiesbaden Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft), in the context of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant upon the defendant's request, requested the Wiesbaden District Court to transmit the files relating to the apportionment proceedings.   On 6 February 1987 the District Court informed the Public Prosecutor's Office that such a request should be reasoned.   The Court also reminded the parties of its decision of 9 December 1986.   55.      On 19 February 1987 the Wiesbaden Public Prosecutor's Office renewed its request for transmission of the files and gave brief reasons therefore.   On 30 March 1987 the District Court granted the request.   The files were sent back after two months.   56.      On 29 June 1987 the District Court fixed 30 September 1987 as the time-limit for both parties to submit the information as ordered on 9 December 1986.   The parties were also informed that in case of non-compliance the case would have to be decided on the basis of their previous submissions.   Furthermore, their non-compliance with the court decision for a period of over six months could be considered as loss of interest in continuing the proceedings.   57.      The defendant filed submissions on 6 October 1987.   On 22 December 1987 the applicant stated that her observations submitted before the decision of 9 December 1986 had already contained the relevant information.   58.      On 5 April 1988 Judge N at the Wiesbaden District Court, the successor in office of Judge H, amended the decision of 9 December 1986, requested the applicant to comment upon the defendant's submissions and ordered the parties to pay advance fees for the preparation of an expert opinion before 31 May 1988.   Furthermore, the Court asked the Heidelberg Chamber of Industry and Commerce about experts in the valuation of real estate.   The Chamber replied on 16 April 1988.   In June 1988 the applicant submitted her comments and paid the advance fees.   59.      On 11 July 1988 the District Court amended the decision of 9 December 1986 in specifying the plots of land to be valued by the expert, and appointed the expert H.   On 29 July 1988 the expert, having regard to his workload, requested the District Court to appoint another expert.   60.         On 29 August 1988 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes- verfassungsgericht) refused to admit the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) dated 12 February 1988 about the length of the proceedings on the ground that it offered no prospect of success.   The Constitutional Court, having examined the separate sets of proceedings on the basis of the case-file, considered that, although the overall length of the proceedings was considerable, the applicant's right to a determination of her case within a reasonable time had not been violated.   61.      The Constitutional Court found in particular that the District Court had not sufficiently expedited the proceedings in the period from 3 January 1978 until November 1980.   This might have been due to the reform of the law on marriage and family of 1976 which had entered into force on 1 January 1977 and entailed problems in the transition period, and to the fact that the main divorce proceedings had only been terminated on 31 October 1980.   Moreover, until July 1980 the applicant had only once, namely on 24 May 1978, requested the District Court to speed up the proceedings.   62.      However, since November 1980 the length of the proceedings had no longer been caused by the conduct of the Courts.   In this respect, the Constitutional Court noted that extensive expert opinions had been necessary, that the parties had not complied with court orders in time and that they had lodged appeals against two judgments of the District Court.   The Constitutional Court considered that the applicant had sometimes, when she considered the court orders to be incorrect, failed to react and submit observations immediately.   Furthermore, the Constitutional Court observed that the risk that decisions of first instance courts are quashed in appeal proceedings and that the case is sent back is inherent in the system of the Civil Code and not objectionable under constitutional law.   63.      On 26 September 1988 the District Court appointed another expert, who also informed the Court that he was overburdened, and sent the files back on 19 October 1988.   On 31 October 1988 the District Court, having first consulted the expert Sch, appointed him to prepare the opinion in question.   64.      On 4 January 1989 the applicant increased her claim for apportionment to DM 430,000.   65.      On 16 March 1989, upon the District Court's inquiry, the expert Sch stated that he would deliver his opinion by mid-April.   On 11 May 1989, upon the Court's further inquiry, he stated that it had not been possible to inspect the estate concerned on two dates in March and May due to the owner's absence.   He requested instructions upon how to continue.   On 18 May 1989 the Court requested the parties to comment upon the expert's statements.   66.      On 5 December 1989 the expert Sch delivered his opinion, which he explained at a hearing before the District Court on 19 April 1990.   67.      On 13 July 1990 the Wiesbaden District Court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant DM 131,930.83 with interest.   It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims amounting to a total of DM 430.000 as being ill-founded.   The question whether the applicant's claims as increased in January 1989 were time-barred could, therefore, be left open.   The Court rejected the applicant's request to pass a judgment by default as regards the defendant's counter-claims.   68.      On 14 August 1990 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Frankfurt Court of Appeal.   She filed the reasons for her appeal on 14 November 1990.   The proceedings are still pending.     B.       Relevant domestic law   69.      According to S. 1565 and S. 1566 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) divorce may be granted if a marriage has broken down.   A marriage has broken down when the matrimonial community of the spouses no longer exists and it cannot be expected that it will be restored by the spouses.   There is an irrefutable presumption that the marriage has broken down if the spouses have been living apart for a year and both spouses petition for divorce or the respondent agrees to the divorce.   Moreover, there is an irrefutable presumption that the marriage has broken down if the spouses have been living apart for three years.   70.      In the case of divorce of a marriage with the matrimonial regime of community of the increase of assets (ehelicher Güterstand der Zugewinngemeinschaft), the apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during the marriage (Zugewinnausgleich) is regulated by SS. 1373 to 1390 of the Civil Code.   71.      S. 1373 of the Civil Code defines the increase as the amount by which the assets owned by a spouse at the end of a marriage exceed the amount owned at the beginning.   S. 1374 and S. 1375 further define the assets at the beginning and the end of a marriage, respectively, in particular as regards liabilities, inheritance or donations.   For calculation purposes, the value at the beginning of the marriage is relevant in respect of the assets owned at the beginning of the marriage, the value at the end of the marriage in respect of the assets owned at the end of the marriage (S. 1376).   72.      Pursuant to S. 1379 of the Civil Code, a spouse is obliged to furnish information to the other spouse about the amount of his/her assets at the end of the marriage, including possibly an inventory.   73.      S. 254 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozeß- ordnung) concerns actions in two stages (Stufenklage).   It stipulates that where a plaintiff files an action for rendering of accounts (Rechnungslegung) or submission of an inventory of assets (Vorlage   eines Vermögensverzeichnisses) or submission of an affidavit (Abgabe einer eidesstattlichen Versicherung), combined with an action for payment or surrender of whatever the defendant owes him under the legal relationship concerned, the specification of the plaintiff's claims may be reserved until the accounts have been rendered, or the inventory or affidavit has been submitted.   74.      SS. 622 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure govern the proceedings concerning divorce and related family matters (Folgesachen).   75.      S. 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates in particular that the court has to conduct the proceedings concerning a divorce action and related family matters as defined in S. 621 para. 1 (e.g. the right to custody over the spouses' children, the right of access to their children, maintenance claims, pension splitting, claims based on the matrimonial regime such as apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during the marriage (Zugewinnausgleich)) at the same time, and, if divorce is to be granted, to take a combined decision upon these matters (Verhandlungs- und Entscheidungsverbund).   The questions of custody rights and pension splitting are, ex officio, taken into account, a decision concerning other family matters has to be requested.   S. 628 provides for limited exceptions from this rule of combined proceedings, in particular in cases of unreasonable hardships.   III.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.       Complaint declared admissible   76.      The Commisson has declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning a matter related to her divorce action, namely the apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during their marriage.     B.       Point at issue   77.      Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.     C.       Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   1.       General considerations   78.      The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that, in her divorce case, she has not received a hearing within a reasonable time.           Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), first sentence, states:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   79.      The applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) to the present proceedings is not in dispute between the parties.   The Commission must examine the length of the proceedings in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission.     2.       Period to be considered   80.      The starting point of the period the reasonableness of which is at issue is 4 January 1978 when the applicant, in the context of her divorce proceedings,   instituted her action in two stages concerning her claim for apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during the marriage.   These proceedings have not yet been terminated.   They have so far lasted for more than thirteen years.   3.       Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings   81.      The parties discussed the application of the different criteria in the case-law of the Convention organs, such as the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and of the authorities concerned.   82.      The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.   In the present case which has not yet been terminated after over thirteen years those circumstances call for a global assessment (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur.   Court H.R., Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A No. 179, p. 23, para. 72).   83.      The Commission finds that the proceedings at issue were of some complexity.   They concerned the applicant's claim for apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during their marriage, and, as from December 1981, similar counter-claims lodged by the defendant.   They involved clarification of the spouses' matrimonial regime, and the taking of evidence as regards various factual matters related to the calculation of the spouses's assets at the beginning and at the end of their marriage.   84.      Considerable delays of the proceedings cannot be attributed to the parties.   In particular, the Government did not show that the applicant's conduct disclosed a lack of due diligence.   85.      As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission notes that the first decision on the merits of the applicant's action for apportionment of the increase in the spouses' assets during their marriage was taken by the Wiesbaden District Court on 10 July 1985, i.e. seven years and six months after she had filed this action (paras. 19 - 47).   Following appeal proceedings from 8 August 1985 until 3 July 1986 (paras. 48 - 49), the second set of proceedings before the Wiesbaden District Court lasted until 13 July 1990 (paras. 50 - 67), thus another four years.   Ensuing appeal proceedings have not yet been terminated (para. 68).   86.      At the outset, the proceedings stagnated remarkably long from 29 November 1979, when the Wiesbaden District Court passed the judgment in the main divorce proceedings, until 7 November 1980, when the Court fixed 24 February 1981 as date for the next hearing.   In this connection the Commission notes the findings of the Federal Constitutional Court (para. 61).   87.      In the ensuing proceedings, the Wiesbaden District Court failed to take a systematic and concentrated approach to the items in dispute between the parties.   88.      Thus, on 29 December 1981 the Wiesbaden District Court, following five hearings in 1981, decided on the taking of evidence in respect of some matters in dispute between the parties.   This first decision had to be amended on 9 December 1986 and again on 5 April and 11 July 1988.   89.      The District Court started in 1982 with the taking of expert evidence.   On 3 March 1983 it informed the parties that it intended to hold a hearing with the expert.   However, the Court did not pursue the case until 24 August 1983, when it informed the parties that further proceedings would require the applicant's statements as to her assets, a matter which had been raised by the defendant already in November 1981, and that the case could be discontinued.   On 27 October 1983 the District Court nevertheless continued the proceedings in order to hear, one month later, witnesses on further issues mentioned in its decision of 29 December 1981.   The expert was only heard on 14 February 1984.   90.      Moreover, the District Court twice committed procedural errors which had to be corrected in appeal proceedings.   In its partial judgment of 30 March 1984 the District Court ordered the applicant to provide the defendant with a list of her assets at the end of the marriage.   The Court thereby failed to consider the parties' recent submissions and request, which entailed appeal proceedings before the Frankfurt Court of Appeal and delayed the proceedings for eight months.   In its judgment of 10 July 1985 the District Court failed to decide upon the defendant's counter-claims.   The result was further appeal proceedings which caused a delay of about one year.   91.      As regards the second set of proceedings before the Wiesbaden District Court, the Commission notes in particular that following the Federal Constitutional Court's decision of 29 August 1988 which addressed the considerable length of the proceedings at that stage it does not appear that any particular efforts were made by the District Court to terminate the proceedings.   Rather, considerable delays occurred in the appointment of an expert, and, eventually, in the submission of his opinion more than one year after his appointment.   92.      The Commission finds that, in these circumstances, a length of the proceedings of over thirteen years without having reached a final decision exceeds a reasonable time.     4.       Conclusion   93.      The Commission unanimously concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.       Secretary to the First Chamber         Acting President of the First Chamber               (M. DE SALVIA)                            (F. ERMACORA)   APPENDIX I HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS   Date                             Item ______________________________________________________________________   23 September 1988                Introduction of the application     8 November 1988                 Registration of the application   Examination of Admissibility     4 April 1989                    Commission invites the respondent                                 Government to submit observations                                 on the admissibility and merits   11 August 1989                   Submission of Government's observations   29 September 1989                Submission of applicant's observations                                 in reply   15 December 1989                 Further observations submitted by                                 the Government     2 January 1990                  Applicant's further observations in                                 reply     7 May 1990                      Commission's decision to declare the                                 application admissible   Examination of the merits   21 September 1990                Additional observations submitted                                 by the Government     6 October 1990                  Commission's consideration of the                                 state of proceedings   31 October 1990                  Applicant's observations in reply     7 November 1990                 Commission's decision to refer the                                 case to its First Chamber     8 November 1990                 Government's further observations   26 November 1990                 Applicant's reply     5 December 1990                 Commission's consideration of the                                 state of proceedings     3 January 1991                  Further submissions by the applicant   17 April 1991                    Commission's consideration of the                                 state of proceedings   31 May 1991                      Final vote and adoption of the Report