CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 septembre 1992

.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. 16958/90                       by Abdulkadir SAHINLER                       against the Federal Republic of Germany           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 September 1992, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 29 December 1989 by Abdulkadir SAHINLER against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 31 July 1990 under file No. 16958/90;         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 facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:         The applicant, born in 1933, is a Turkish national and resident in Berlin.   He is a teacher by profession.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Deumeland, residing in Berlin.         In September 1983 the applicant informed his employer, the Land Berlin, that he had had an accident while teaching.   He submitted that on 12 September 1983 a pupil had misbehaved in class and upset him so much that since then he had been unfit to work.         On 26 March 1984 the Land Berlin, having heard several doctors and a psychiatric expert, refused to pay the applicant allowances under the Industrial Accident Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Unfall- versicherung) on the ground that the event of 12 September 1983 could not be considered as accident.   The applicant's appeal (Widerspruch) was dismissed on 6 July 1984.         On 29 July 1984 the applicant filed an action with the Berlin Social Court (Sozialgericht) against the Land Berlin, represented by the Berlin Industrial Accident Insurance Office (Eigenunfall- versicherung) claiming that the insulting remarks of the pupil concerned had caused his illness.   In these proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr. Deumeland.         On 4 February 1985 the Berlin Social Court dismissed the applicant's action.   The Social Court found in particular that the applicant could not claim payments under the Industrial Accident Insurance Scheme in respect of the event of 12 September 1983, as he had not suffered an industrial accident within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Reich Insurance Code (Reichsunfall- versicherungsgesetz).   The incident could only be regarded as a bagatelle and not as a decisive cause for any health problems which he suffered.         The judgment was served upon the applicant on 6 March 1985.         On 7 March 1985 the applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) with the Berlin Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht).   In these proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr. M., a lawyer practising in Berlin, as well as by Mr. Deumeland.         On 29 January 1989 the Berlin Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.   The Social Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had failed to show that he had suffered from an industrial accident within the meaning of the Reich Insurance Code, in particular that on 12 September 1983 a pupil had gravely insulted him and thereby caused a health problem.   In this respect, the Social Court of Appeal proceeded from a medical report of 3 June 1985 and the testimony of witnesses, who had been heard on 5 November 1987 and 4 February 1988. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had commented upon the testimony of the witnesses and requested to take further evidence; however, he had failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's instruction to specify the further evidence to be taken.   The Berlin Social Court of Appeal did not grant leave to appeal on points of law (Revision) to the Federal Social Court of Appeal (Bundessozialgericht).         On 6 April 1989 the judgment of 29 January 1989 was served upon the applicant by deposit at the Berlin 36 Post Office.         On 21 June 1989 the Federal Social Court declared the applicant's request for leave to appeal on points of law (Nichtzulassungs- beschwerde) inadmissible on the ground that he had failed duly to substantiate the reasons for appeal.   The envisaged appeal did not raise any question of fundamental importance, nor any procedural defects.   In particular, the applicant had not shown that the refusal of the Berlin Social Court of Appeal to postpone the hearing, scheduled for 26 January 1989, had been unjustified.   According to the record of this hearing, the applicant had been represented by Mr. M., who had not requested to postpone the hearing on the ground that Mr. Deumeland could not attend it.         The Federal Social Court's decision was served upon the applicant on 4 July 1989.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the social court proceedings.   2.     The applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the refusal of the industrial accident allowances. He considers that the social court proceedings were unfair, in particular in that the Berlin Social Court of Appeal refused to postpone a hearing although one of his two representatives, namely Mr. Deumeland, could not attend the hearing.   Furthermore, he complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against on the ground of his Turkish nationality.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 29 December 1989 and registered on 31 July 1990.         On 2 July 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the application as regards the complaint about the length of the proceedings.         The observations were submitted by the respondent Government on 11 October 1991.   The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 10 January 1992.         On 2 December 1991 the Commission decided to refer the case to a Chamber.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant considers that the social court proceedings concerning his claim for an industrial accident allowance exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), so far as relevant, provides:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,       everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time       ..."         The Government do not contest the admissibility of this complaint.   However, having regard to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct, they find that the length of the social court proceedings is not in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, namely the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities, and having regard to all the information in its possession, that a thorough examination of this complaint is required, both as to the law and as to the facts.   2.     The applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that his claims for industrial accident allowances were dismissed, and also of the alleged unfairness of the social court proceedings concerned.   He submits in particular that the Berlin Social Court of Appeal refused to postpone a hearing although one of his two representatives, namely Mr. Deumeland, could not attend the hearing. Furthermore, he complains under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention that he was discriminated against on the ground of his Turkish nationality.   However, in respect of these complaints, the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of the rights invoked by the applicant.   This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission,   -      unanimously, DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaint about       the length of the proceedings, without prejudging the merits of       the case;   -      by a majority, DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the       application.     Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber                (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)