CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 mai 1993

.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   Application Nos. 1) 15252/89   2) 15628/89                                 3) 17384/90                                     N.                                   against                                 Switzerland                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 14 May 1993)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.          INTRODUCTION            (paras. 1 - 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              A.     The applications                  (paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              B.     The proceedings                  (paras. 5 - 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              C.     The present Report                  (paras. 12 - 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.         ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS            (paras. 17 - 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4              A.     The particular circumstances of the case                  (paras. 17 - 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4                    1.    Proceedings instituted against the                       Canton of St. Gallen in 1983                       (paras. 17 - 38). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4                         a)     Proceedings between 1966 and 1982                             (paras. 17 - 19). . . . . . . . . . . . 4                         b)     Responsibility action of 1983                             (paras. 20 - 38). . . . . . . . . . . . 4                    2.    Proceedings instituted against the                       Swiss Confederation                       (paras. 39 - 43). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              B.     Relevant domestic law                  (paras. 44 - 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7                    1.    Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz)                       (paras. 44 - 47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7                    2.    Federal Responsibility Act                       (Verantwortlichkeitsgesetz)                       (para. 48). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8                    3.    Responsibility Act of the Canton of                       St. Gallen                       (paras. 49 - 50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8   III.        OPINION OF THE COMMISSION            (paras.   51 - 99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              A.     Complaints declared admissible                  (para. 51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              B.     Points at issue                  (para. 52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10              C.     Proceedings instituted against the                  Canton of St. Gallen                  (paras. 53 - 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10                    1.    Applicability of Article 6 para. 1                       of the Convention                       (paras 54 - 62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10                    2.    Relevant criteria in the application of                       Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                       (para. 63). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11                    3.    Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of                       the Convention                       (paras. 64 - 76). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11                    Conclusion                  (para. 77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13              D.     Imposition of court costs in advance                  (paras. 78 - 97) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13                    1.    Applicability of Article 6 para. 1                       of the Convention                       (paras. 79 - 86). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13                    2.    Compliance with Article 6 para. 1                       of the Convention                       (paras. 87 - 96). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14                         Conclusion                       (para. 97). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16              E.     Recapitulation                  (paras. 98 - 99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16   JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF MM. GEUS AND MARXER . . . . . . . . . .17   JOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL, SCHERMERS, DANELIUS, Mrs. THUNE and Mr. ROZAKIS. . . . . .18   APPENDIX I        : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . .19   APPENDIX II       : PARTIAL DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                    8 APRIL 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21   APPENDIX III      : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                    11 MAY 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34   APPENDIX IV       : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                    13 May 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45   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 applications   2.     The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1935, is a pig-breeder residing at Oberbüren in Switzerland.   3.     The applications are directed against Switzerland.   The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. O. Jacot-Guillarmod, Deputy Director of the Federal Office of Justice, and their Deputy Agent, Mr. Ph. Boillat, Head of the European Law and International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice.   4.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen; and about advance court costs which he was asked to pay. He also complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him (cf. para. 10 below).   B.     The proceedings   5.     The applicant originally filed six applications which were introduced as follows: 1) No. 15252/89 on 23 April 1987; 2) No. 15628/89 on 25 July 1989; 3) No. 15629/89 on 18 May 1989; 4) No. 15630/89 on   18 May 1989; 5) No. 15857/89 on 3 October 1989; and 6) No. 17384/90 on 10 September 1990.   6.     These applications were registered as follows: 1) 20 July 1989; 2) 4 October 1989; 3) 16 October 1989; 4) 16 October 1989; 5) 4 December 1989; and 6) 31 October 1990.   7.     On 8 April 1991 the Commission decided to join the applications; to communicate them in so far as they concerned complaints raised in three applications (Nos. 15252/89, 15628/89 and 17384/90) about the length of the proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen, the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant, and the court costs of 6,500 SFr which the applicant was asked to pay in the proceedings against the Swiss Confederation; and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications.   8.     The Government's observations were received by letter dated 19 July 1991; the applicant's observations were dated 18 September 1991.   9.     On 11 May 1992 the Commission declared Applications Nos. 15252/89, 15628/89 and 17384/90 admissible.   10.    In additional observations of 10 July 1992 the Government submitted that the applicant had in fact not raised before the Commission a complaint about the criminal proceedings instituted against himself; and that he had not complied with the requirements of the exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention in respect of these proceedings and the proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen.         Insofar as the Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the Commission found no basis for applying Article 29 of the Convention.         Insofar as the Government maintained that the applicant had not complained about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against himself, the Commission has obtained further submissions from the parties and by decision of 13 May 1993 rejected this part of the applications under Article 29 of the Convention.   11.    After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   12.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                    MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                       J. A. FROWEIN                       S. TRECHSEL                       G. SPERDUTI                       E. BUSUTTIL                       A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                       A. WEITZEL                       J.-C. SOYER                       H. G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                  Mrs. G. H. THUNE                  Sir   Basil HALL                  MM.   F. MARTINEZ                       C. L. ROZAKIS                  Mrs. J. LIDDY                       J.-C. GEUS                       M. P. PELLONPÄÄ                       B. MARXER                       G.B. REFFI                       M.A. NOVICKI   13.    The text of this Report was adopted on 14 May 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.    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.   15.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I, the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications as Appendices II, III and IV.   16.    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   1.     Proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen in 1983   a)     Proceedings between 1966 and 1982       ---------------------------------   17.    In 1965/1966 the applicant's pigs became ill and had to be killed.   The applicant was of the opinion that the illness had been caused by manure which had entered the drinking water supply.   In 1966 he unsuccessfully introduced an action against the Oberbüren municipal and water corporation, claiming damages of 150,000 SFr.   Following further appeals, the St. Gallen Cantonal Court (Kantonsgericht) in 1975 upheld the action to the amount of 85,844 SFr.   18.    On 24 June 1981 the applicant introduced a first responsibility action (Verantwortlichkeitsklage) against the Canton of St. Gallen, claiming damages of 653,273.60 SFr on account of the long duration of the previous proceedings.   The action was dismissed on 10 December 1982 by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on account of forfeiture (Verwirkung).   19.    Between 1971 and 1978 bankruptcy proceedings were conducted against the applicant.   b)     Responsibility action of 1983       -----------------------------   20.    On 12 December 1983 the applicant introduced with the Federal Court a responsibility action under Section 42 of the Federal Judiciary Act (see below, Relevant domestic law), numbering three pages, against the Canton of St. Gallen.   He   complained inter alia that the bankruptcy authorities had carelessly conducted the bankruptcy proceedings against him and claimed damages of 1,505,156.85 SFr.   21.    On 6 January 1984 the Federal Court invited the applicant to consult a lawyer and to introduce an improved action.   Mr. T., a lawyer, then represented the applicant.   On 6 February, 28 March and 7 May 1984 T. asked for a prolongation of the time-limit to file the improved action.   22.    On 7 May 1984 T. also filed a request for legal aid (Armenrecht). In a letter of 25 May 1984 the Court informed the applicant that it saw no responsibility of the Canton of St. Gallen for the damages claimed. On 25 June 1984 the applicant informed the Federal Court that T. no longer represented him; the applicant also requested a prolongation of the time-limit.   A further request for prolongation was filed on 20 August 1984.   23.    On 3 September 1984 the applicant filed an improved action, numbering 110 pages, in which he claimed 1,320,783.20 SFr.   Therein he complained inter alia of the continuing damaging conduct of the St. Gallen authorities.   He alleged in particular that until 1983 he had not been able to consult the various documents, for instance the minutes of the bankruptcy proceedings and the final statement of the account (Schlussabrechnung); he also alleged that the bankruptcy administration had failed to raise certain claims for damages arising out of the applicant's bankruptcy (Folgeschaden) against a municipality and water corporation.   24.    The Court held a preparatory hearing on 20 February 1985 at which the applicant was present.   On 26 February 1985 the Court granted the applicant legal aid and, upon his request, appointed H. as his lawyer.   25.    On 23 August 1985, following a settlement with his previous lawyers against whom he had introduced claims, the applicant withdrew various claims against the Canton of St. Gallen amounting to 653,273.60 SFr from his above action.   26.    Thereupon, the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a friendly settlement with the Canton of St. Gallen.   27.    On 6 August 1986 B., a substitute for the lawyer H., introduced with the Federal Court a further improved action.   Therein he claimed under Item No. (1) 256,501.40 SFr damages for the harm caused by the polluted drinking water to the applicant's pig-breeding.   Under Items Nos. (2) - (4) he further requested approximately 400,000 SFr.   28.    On 11 August 1986 the Federal Court invited the Canton of St. Gallen to reply to the action before 30 September 1986.   The time-limit was prolonged.   On 30 September 1986 the Federal Court decided to limit the proceedings to Item No. (1) of the applicant's action of 6 August 1986.   The Canton of St. Gallen filed its reply on 15 December 1986.   29.    On 23 October 1987 H. informed the Federal Court that the applicant had withdrawn his power of attorney.   By letter of 2 November 1987 the Federal Court replied that in view of the conditions of legal aid granted on 26 February 1985 this was not possible.   On 26 November 1987 the Court rejected the applicant's request for a new lawyer.   30.    On 15 December 1987, at a preparatory hearing, the parties could not agree on a friendly settlement.   The Court then requested the parties to submit further written statements.   31.    On 1 February 1988 the applicant requested suspension of the proceedings as the diet of the Canton of St. Gallen was dealing with the case.   This was refused by the Court on 19 February 1988.   H. then asked for a prolongation of the time-limit for filing a further statement.   32.    The applicant filed his statement on 18 April 1988.   He then wrote to the Court on 27 May 1988, insisting on the withdrawal of H.'s power of attorney.   On 31 May 1988 H. filed a separate statement.   On 11 July 1988 the applicant complained to the Court that he had received no reply to his letter of 27 May 1988, and that the proceedings lasted too long.   33.    The Canton of St. Gallen filed its reply on 22 August 1988. On 2 September 1988 the written proceedings were closed.   34.    Following a hearing on 25 September 1988 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's action on 25 October 1988.   The judgment numbering ten pages was served on the applicant on 18 November 1988. Therein the Court found that in view of the legal aid granted to the applicant on 26 February 1985 it could not consider the submissions filed by the applicant on 18 April 1988.   35.    In its decision the Court considered that the action had to be dismissed as the Canton of St. Gallen lacked standing.   In particular, according to the 1980 Additional Act there was no primary responsibility of the Canton of St. Gallen for acts of bankruptcy officials at the time of the damaging conduct complained of.   Before the Additional Act entered into force, responsibility proceedings had to be primarily directed against the officials concerned, and only subsidiarily against the Canton.   The Court saw no indication of a continuing damaging conduct of the bankruptcy authorities after the Additional Act entered into force.   36.    A further decision of the Federal Court of 25 October 1988 concerned legal aid.   The Court noted therein that it had dismissed the applicant's claims as to Item No. (1) of his ameliorated action of 6 August 1986.   The remaining items lacked prospects of success inter alia as certain issues had definitively been decided on 10 December 1982.   As a result, the legal aid granted to the applicant was withdrawn.   The Court requested the applicant to pay advance costs of 6,000 SFr.   If this sum was not paid, the Court threatened to declare inadmissible the remaining items of the applicant's action.   37.    By letter of 16 December 1988 the applicant wrote to the Federal Court that he did not have the means to pay the sum of 6,000 SFr.   38.    On 6 January 1989 the Federal Court declared inadmissible the remaining items of the applicant's action on the ground that he had failed to pay the costs in advance.   2.     Proceedings instituted against the Swiss Confederation   39.    Following the decision of the Federal Court of 25 October 1988 (see above, para. 34), the applicant introduced with the Federal Finance Department (Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement) a claim for damages, resulting from the Court's decision.   The Department dismissed the claim on 23 March 1989.   40.    The applicant then introduced with the Federal Court a responsibility action against the Swiss Confederation (Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft) in which he claimed damages amounting to 671,554.90 SFr.    The applicant also challenged certain Federal Court judges, and requested legal aid.   In his action of 24 pages the applicant alleged   that the decision of the Federal Court of 25 October 1988 had been wrong in fact and in law.   The applicant also complained of the length of the proceedings, approximately five years, alleging "obstruction of the proceedings" ("Prozessverschleppung") and "infinite sloppiness" ("grenzenlose Schlamperei").   He complained of damaging conduct on behalf of the Federal Court in that this length prevented him from introducing proceedings against the Cantonal authorities in time.   41.    By decision of 14 December 1989 the Federal Court, consisting of three judges, dismissed the applicant's challenge of Federal Court judges.   It further dismissed his request for legal aid.   With reference to Section 12 of the Federal Responsibility Act (see below, Relevant domestic law) it found that the previous decisions of the Federal Court had become definitive, and their legality could not be examined in responsibility proceedings.   The action a priori lacked prospects of success (erscheint von vorneherein aussichtslos), and the applicant was invited to pay advance court costs of 6,500 SFr.   42.    The applicant then requested the reopening of the previous proceedings.   On 6 March 1990 the Federal Court rejected this request and again invited the applicant to pay advance court costs amounting to 6,500 SFr.   43.    In a further decision of 4 May 1990 the Federal Court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the advance court costs and declared his action inadmissible.   B.     Relevant domestic law   1.     Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz)   44.    According to Section 42 of the Federal Judiciary Act the Federal Court decides as the only court in civil litigation between Cantons and private persons.   45.    Section 153 of the Federal Judiciary Act concerns court costs. According to para. 1 b) the costs will vary as a rule between 200 and 20,000 SFr, depending on the special circumstances of the case, e.g. its particular volume or complexity.   46.    Section 150 para. 1 of the Federal Judiciary Act provides:   <Translation>         "Whoever calls upon the Federal Court in civil cases must, upon       an order of the President, provide a security for the probable       court costs (Section 153); for particular reasons, this security       may exceptionally be waived in part or completely."   <German>         "In der Zivilrechtspflege hat, wer das Bundesgericht anruft, nach       Anordnung des Präsidenten die mutmasslichen Gerichtskosten       (Art.153) sicherzustellen; ausnahmsweise kann aus besonderen       Gründen diese Sicherstellung ganz oder teilweise erlassen       werden."   47.    Section 152 para. 1 of the Federal Judiciary Act states:   <Translation>         "Upon request the Federal Court will exempt an indigent party,       whose application does not appear without prospects of success,       from paying the court costs ..."   <German>         "Das Bundesgericht gewährt einer bedürftigen Partei, deren       Rechtsbegehren nicht aussichtslos erscheint, auf Antrag Befreiung       von der Bezahlung der Gerichtskosten ..."   2.     Federal Responsibility Act (Verantwortlichkeitsgesetz)   48.    The Federal Responsibility Act regulates the responsibility for damages of the Confederation and her members of office and civil servants.   Section 1 states that the Act is applicable to members of the Federal Court.   According to Section 3 of the Act, the Confederation becomes liable to compensate damage which a civil servant causes illegally to third persons while exercising his official duties (in Ausübung seiner amtlichen Tätigkeit Dritten widerrechtlich zufügt). Section 10 of the Act provides that the Federal Court shall decide as the only court on disputed claims.   Section 12 states:   <Translation>         "The legality of orders, decisions and judgments which have       formally obtained legal force cannot be examined in       responsibility proceedings."   <German>         "Die Rechtmässigkeit formell rechtskräftiger Verfügungen,       Entscheide und Urteile kann nicht in einem       Verantwortlichkeitsverfahren überprüft werden."   3.     Responsibility Act of the Canton of St. Gallen   49.    According to Section 13 para. 1 of the Responsibility Act of the Canton of St. Gallen in force until 1980, bankruptcy officials were primarily responsible for their conduct in office; the Canton was only subsidiarily responsible.   50.    According to Section 13 para. 2 (d) of the 1980 Additional Act (Nachtragsgesetz) the Canton or the municipality is directly responsible to compensate damage which bankruptcy officials cause to third persons.   The Additional Act entered into force on 4 December 1980.   Section 13 para. 2 is also applicable if the damage was caused before 4 December 1980, as long as the damaging conduct (schädigende Handlung) continued after the entry into force of the Act.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   51.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaints about the length of the proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen; and the court costs which he was asked to pay in advance.   B.     Points at issue   52.    Accordingly, the issues to be determined are whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention:   -      in respect of the length of the proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen;   -      in respect of the court costs which the applicant was asked to pay in advance.   C.     Proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen   53.    The applicant complains that the proceedings which he instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen were not terminated within a reasonable time.   He relies on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which includes the following provision:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of       any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ...       hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ..."   1.     Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   54.    The Commission must first examine whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the proceedings at issue. This has not been contested by the parties.   55.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention extends to "contestations" (disputes) over "civil rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see Eur. Court H.R., Editions Périscope judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, para. 35).   56.    As to the issue whether the applicant could claim a "right" under domestic law, the Commission notes that the Responsibility Act of the Canton of St. Gallen envisages since 1980 a responsibility action against the Canton in case of damage alleged to be caused by the bankruptcy officials.   It also envisages the possibility of an action against the Canton of St. Gallen in the case of damage caused before 1980, where the damaging conduct continued after the entry into force of the revised law (see above, paras. 49 et seq.).   57.    In the present case, the applicant filed a responsibility action against the Canton of St. Gallen.   Insofar as he was complaining about acts committed before the revised Responsibility Act entered into force in 1980, he should have filed his action against the bankruptcy officials concerned.   Nevertheless, the applicant also alleged that the damaging conduct of the bankruptcy officials continued after the entry into force of the revised law.   58.    It is not for the Commission to examine the prospects of success of an action brought on these grounds (see Eur. Court H.R., Editions Périscope judgment, loc. cit., para. 38).   It suffices to note that the applicant was complaining of continuing damaging conduct by the bankruptcy officials, and that the revised Responsibility Act envisages in such cases the responsibility of the Canton of St. Gallen.   59.    Thus, the "right" claimed by the applicant could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   60.   As to the "civil" nature of the claim, Section 42 of the Federal Judiciary Act expressly refers to the "civil" character of the litigation at issue (see above, para. 52).   Moreover, the action which concerned damages was "pecuniary" in nature (see Eur. Court H.R., Editions Périscope judgment, loc. cit., para. 40).   The right in question was therefore a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   61.    Finally, the Commission considers that in the present case there was a "contestation" (dispute) concerning the existence of the right claimed by the applicant.   62.    It follows that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the proceedings at issue.   2.     Relevant criteria in the application of Article 6 para. 1       (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   63.    The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 17, para. 28).   3.     Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   64.    The applicant submits in respect of the proceedings which he introduced against the Canton of St. Gallen that, even if the file was voluminous, the case could not be considered complex.   He points out that the Federal Court often did not speedily decide on his requests, for instance to be granted legal aid; it also waited two years before transmitting his statement of 3 September 1984 to the opposite party.   65.    The Government submit that these proceedings were conducted within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The applicant was largely responsible for any delay by requesting five times in 1984 and once in 1988 a prolongation of time-limits for filing a statement.   The frequent change of lawyers also slowed down proceedings.   The Federal Court afforded the applicant's case particular care, for instance by drawing his attention to the possibility of improving his action.   It attempted to accelerate the proceedings while having due regard to the applicant's rights.   66.    The Commission notes that the applicant introduced his responsibility action before the Federal Court on 12 December 1983 (see above, para. 20).   Improved actions were introduced on 3 September 1984 and 6 August 1986.   The Court dismissed part of the action on 25 October 1988 and declared the remainder inadmissible on 6 January 1989 (see above, paras. 34 et seq.).   67.    The proceedings thus lasted from 12 December 1983 until 6 January 1989, i.e. a period of five years and 25 days.   However, the Commission notes that during this period the applicant had to reformulate his actions.   68.    As regards the complexity of the case, the Commission notes that in his action for damages the applicant complained about damaging conduct of bankruptcy officials.   On 25 May 1984 the Federal Court informed the applicant that the Canton of St. Gallen could not be made responsible for the damages claimed (para. 22 above).   It dismissed part of the applicant's action on 25 October 1988 on the ground that it saw no continuing damaging conduct on the part of the bankruptcy officials concerned, and that the Canton of St. Gallen could not therefore be made responsible for his claims.   In its judgment of 6 January 1989 the Court dismissed the remainder of the action as the applicant had failed to pay court costs in advance.   69.    Thus, the complexity of the issues dealt with by the Federal Court contributed to some extent to the length of the proceedings.   70.    As regards the applicant's conduct, the Commission notes that his original action was badly formulated, and that subsequently he filed improved actions.   Moreover, on five occasions in 1984 the applicant requested a prolongation of the time-limit to file the improved action; in 1988 he requested the suspension of the proceedings and a further prolongation of a time-limit to file a statement.   In 1984 and 1987 the applicant withdrew his lawyer's power of attorney.   The applicant was also involved in settlement negotiations (see above, paras. 25 et seq.)   71.    It follows that the applicant's behaviour contributed to the length of the proceedings.   72.    As regards the conduct of the authorities, the applicant has referred to one particular period of inactivity of the Federal Court. Thus, he claims that the Court waited two years until it transmitted his statement of 3 September 1984 to the opposite party.   73.    The Commission notes that, after the applicant filed his improved action on 3 September 1984, the Federal Court held a preparatory hearing on 20 February 1985.   On 26 February 1985, it granted the applicant legal aid and appointed a lawyer (see above, para. 24).   The period thereafter can be explained by the fact that the applicant was involved in settlement negotiations (paras. 25 and 26, above).   74.    However, once the applicant's lawyer introduced a further improved action with the Federal Court on 6 August 1986 (see above, para. 27), the Court obviously concluded that the applicant no longer intended to pursue the settlement negotiations and that it could continue examination of the case.   As a result, the applicant's action was communicated to the Canton of St. Gallen on 11 August 1986.   75.    The Commission further notes the Federal Court's endeavours to ensure that the applicant, a person without legal training, could properly present his case, and that he was represented by a lawyer. On the other hand, in order not unduly to prolong the proceedings, the Federal Court at a later stage in fact refused the applicant's request for a new lawyer (see above, para. 29).   The applicant's request for a suspension of the proceedings as the diet of the Canton of St. Gallen was dealing with his case was also refused (para. 31, above).   76.    In these circumstances, the Commission does not find that the length of the proceedings complained of exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Conclusion   77.    The Commission concludes, by 16 votes to 4, that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings instituted against the Canton of St. Gallen.   D.     Imposition of court costs in advance   78.    The applicant complains that in the proceedings which he attempted to institute against the Swiss Confederation he was asked to pay advance court costs amounting to 6,500 SFr. The applicant relies on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which states, insofar as relevant:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...       everyone is entitled to a .. hearing ... by (a) ... tribunal ..."   1.     Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   79.    The Commission must first examine whether Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the proceedings at issue. This has not been contested by the Government.   80.    Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention extends to "contestations" (disputes) over "civil rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see Editions Périscope, loc. cit., para. 35).   81.    As to the issue whether the applicant could claim a "right" under domestic law, the Commission notes that the Federal Responsibility Act envisages in principle the responsibility of the Confederation for damage caused by civil servants, and that this Act also applies to members of the Federal Court (see above, para. 48).    On the other hand, according to Section 12 of the Federal Responsibility Act, "the legality of ... decisions and judgments which have formally obtained legal force cannot be examined in responsibility proceedings" (see ibid.).   82.    In his action the applicant complained of the Court's conduct of the proceedings, and that in view of the ensuing delays he had suffered prejudice as he had missed other time-limits.   The Federal Responsibility Act does not exclude such a claim.   There was no other remedy under Swiss law to complain about the length of court proceedings which had been terminated (see the Commission's decision on admissibility of 11 May 1992, below at page 33).   83.    It is not for the Commission to examine the prospects of success of an action brought on these grounds (see Editions Périscope judgment, loc. cit., para. 38).   It suffices to note that the applicant was not merely complaining of the decision, but of damage resulting from the Federal Court's conduct, and that the Federal Responsibility Act provides in such cases for a action before the Federal Court.   84.    Thus, the "right" claimed by the applicant could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.    The applicant's action would have led to the "determination" of this right. Moreover, the action concerned damages and was thus "pecuniary" in nature (see Editions Périscope judgment, loc. cit., para. 40).   The right in question was therefore a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   85.    Finally, the Commission considers that in the present case there was a "contestation" (dispute) concerning the existence of the right claimed by the applicant.   86.    It follows that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable to the proceedings at issue.   2.     Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   87.    As regards the merits of his complaint, the applicant submits that his case was not without prospects of success.   88.    The Government submit, with reference to Section 153 para. 1 b) of the Federal Judiciary Act, that the amount of advance costs fixed in the present case was not disproportionate.   89.    The Government further recall, with reference to Section 152 para. 1 of the Federal Judiciary Act, that the Federal Court had already granted legal aid to the applicant, and appointed a lawyer, in the proceedings against the Canton of St. Gallen leading to the decision of 25 October 1988.   The applicant was indigent, but his action was without any prospects of success.   His responsibility action concerned decisions of the Federal Co