CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 21 mai 1996

.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                               SECOND CHAMBER                            Application No. 22230/93                                    Erik Damm                                     against                                     Denmark                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 21 May 1996)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                      Page     INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1     PART I   :   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3     PART II :   SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4                                  INTRODUCTION     1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Erik Damm against Denmark on 4 May 1993.   It was registered on 13 July 1993 under file No. 22230/93.   2.     The applicant was represented by Mr. Tyge Trier, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.   3.     The Government of Denmark were represented by their Agent, Ambassador Laurids Mikaelsen of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.     The application relates to the applicant's complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning the proceedings in a civil suit brought before the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret). On 19 October 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application admissible in so far as it concerned the length of the court proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   5.     The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition       referred to it:         a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,       undertake together with the representatives of the parties       an examination of the petition and, if need be, an       investigation, for the effective conduct of which the       States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,       after an exchange of views with the Commission;         b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal       of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly       settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human       Rights as defined in this Convention."   6.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 21 May 1996 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   7.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                                   PART I                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     8.     In April 1983 the applicant instituted proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark against a former legal counsel in order to obtain damages for alleged procedural errors committed by counsel in a previous law-suit between the applicant and a private company.   9.     On 24 April 1991 the High Court dismissed the case as the applicant had failed to comply with the Court's order to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. This decision was quashed by the Supreme Court (Højesteret) on 6 August 1991.   10.    On 25 January 1995 the High Court dismissed the case once more, now since the applicant had not provided the necessary security to cover the costs of the court appointed counsel. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.   11.    Before the Commission the applicant complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, of the length of the court proceedings.                                     PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED     12.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   13.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   14.    By letter of 9 May 1996 the applicant's representative submitted, inter alia, the following:         "I have negotiated with the representatives of the       Government and I can inform you that the applicant is now       willing to settle the case under Article 28 para. 1 b of       the Convention for a payment by the Government of a sum of       DKK 55,000 (fiftyfivethousand) to the applicant with the       addition of payment of reasonable legal expenses. I can       inform you that the legal fees have so far not exceeded       DKK 12,000 excluding applicable VAT. I have today been       informed that the Government is prepared to settle the case       in accordance with these terms."         By letter of 13 May 1996 the Agent of the respondent Government submitted the following:         "With reference to ... the above application, I am pleased       to confirm that the Government is ready to pay the sum of       DKK 55,000 (fifty-five thousand DKK) to the applicant and       to pay the reasonable legal expenses, which so far have not       exceeded DKK 12,000 excluding applicable VAT."   15.    At its session on 21 May 1996, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   16.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.     Secretary to the Second Chamber    President of the Second Chamber           (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                     (H. DANELIUS)