CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 31 août 1994

.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. 21977/93                       by S.A.                       against Germany         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 31 August 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 3 May 1993 by S.A. against Germany and registered on 4 June 1993 under file No. 21977/93;         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 applicant is a German citizen born in 1932 and living in Recklinghausen. He complains about the denial of unemployment aid (Arbeitslosenhilfe) and about proceedings before the Social Court relating to his claim for unemployment aid.         It follows from his statements and the documents submitted that in 1973 the applicant was paid unemployment benefit (Arbeitslosengeld) and, as from 1974 onwards, unemployment aid (Arbeitslosenhilfe).         On 27 May 1977 the Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) in Recklinghausen ordered that unemployment aid be no longer paid to the applicant as he had failed to co-operate.         An action against this decision was rejected by the Social Court (Sozialgericht) in Gelsenkirchen on 28 October 1977.         The applicant lodged an appeal. During the appeal proceedings the labour authorities again ordered suspension (Sperrzeit) of payment of unemployment aid because the applicant had not responded to their offer of employment.         The appeal was rejected by the Regional Social Court and on 4 September 1979 the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) partly dismissed a further appeal on points of law and partly granted the applicant's appeal and quashed the decisions complained of, namely the order of 27 May 1973 withdrawing unemployment aid.         The applicant's constitutional complaint and his request for retrial relating to the unsuccessful part of his social action remained to no avail.         Subsequently the Labour Office paid the applicant in 1980 unemployment aid for certain periods in 1977. It refused, however, further payments.         The applicant again lodged an action, the main part of which was dismissed by the Social Court on 3 June 1985. On 2 December 1985 the Social Court rejected the applicants request to continue the proceedings. The Court considered that the first instance proceedings had been terminated by the judgment of 3 June 1985 and that there were no reasons to amend this judgment.         The applicant then lodged an appeal against the two decisions of 3 June 1985 and 2 December 1985. On 23 November 1988 the Regional Social Court partly granted the appeal and dismissed the remainder.         On 3 February 1989 the applicant requested the Regional Social Court to amend its judgment. Reasons for this request were submitted.         On 9 June 1989 the Regional Social Court rejected the applicant's request for an amendment of its judgment. An appeal on points of law against this decision was rejected by the Federal Social Court as being inadmissible on 25 July 1989.         On 22 February 1989 a lawyer practising in Recklinghausen, Mr. W., lodged an appeal on points of law in behalf of the applicant against the judgment of 23 November 1988. After several extensions of the time-limit for the submission of the grounds of appeal, such grounds were submitted on 20 July 1989. They comprised more than 100 typewritten pages and were signed by lawyer W.         On 9 June 1992 the Federal Social Court dismissed the appeal on points of law as being inadmissible. It found that W. had only signed but not prepared the grounds for the applicant's appeal on points of law. The Court found that in view of the contents, its outward appearance and the manner of formulation it was clear that the applicant himself had elaborated the brief. Also its unusual length proved this. On the other hand it could not be found that the lawyer had independently checked, examined and evaluated the text elaborated by the applicant. This followed inter alia from the fact that the text contained numerous irrelevant and amateurish arguments. The Court admitted that it was often difficult for lawyers to insist with their clients on eliminating irrelevant arguments in their submissions to the Court, but such difficulties did not justify lawyers in leaving the drafting of briefs exclusively to their clients and in limiting themselves to signing the papers written by their clients. As this was exactly what the applicant and his lawyers had done, the appeal had to be rejected as being inadmissible.         The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint which was rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 2 November 1992.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant considers that he was denied a fair hearing and that his case was not decided by independent and impartial judges. He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   THE LAW         The applicant has complained that his appeal against the decision of the Regional Social Court dated 23 November 1988 has been declared inadmissible because it had not been duly prepared and signed by a lawyer.         While Article 6 (Art. 6) does not in itself grant access to a Court of Appeal, the Commission has nevertheless recognised that if under domestic law the possibility of an appeal exists the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) have, according to the circumstances, also to be observed in the appeal proceedings.   On the other hand the Commission has already decided that this provision does not prevent Contracting States from making regulations governing the access to an appellate court (cf. No. 8407/78 Dec. 6.5.80, D.R. 20, p. 179).         Regulations concerning the presentation of grounds for an appeal by a lawyer undoubtedly serve the purpose of assuring a proper administration of justice.         In the applicant's case it cannot be found that the regulation in question prevented the applicant from lodging an appeal in a proper manner.   However, according to the findings of the Federal Social Court, it followed from the contents, the outward appearance and the manner of formulation of the grounds for appeal submitted by the applicant's lawyer that the applicant had clearly prepared the brief in question himself.   The court furthermore found that the text contained numerous irrelevant and amateurish arguments which showed that the applicant's lawyer had not independently checked, examined or evaluated the grounds for appeal.   Rather they had been prepared by the applicant and the lawyer had limited himself to signing the document.         The applicant has not shown that these findings of the Federal Social Court are arbitrary or unjustified in the circumstances of his case.         An examination of his case by the Commission of the present complaint does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in Article 6 (Art. 6).         It follows that the application has to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                        (A. WEITZEL)