CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 septembre 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 20457/92                       by Hermann HÄUSSLER                       against Germany         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 4 September 1996, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 27 July 1992 by Hermann HÄUSSLER against Germany and registered on 10 August 1992 under file No. 20457/92;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the Commission's decision of 22 February 1995 to communicate the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 2 May 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 16 June 1995;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, born in 1921, is a German national and resident in Munich.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant, who was employed in the German civil service, receives a supplementary pension (Versorgungsrente), which is administered by the Supplementary Pensions Office (Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder).   In 1982 and 1984 the statutes of this pension scheme were amended in order to avoid that the amounts paid under the general old age pension scheme, plus the amounts paid under the supplementary pension scheme for the civil service, exceeded the last net salaries of the employees in the civil service.   These amendments also affected cases where insurance contracts already existed or pensions were paid.         On 30 April 1985 the Supplementary Pensions Office informed the applicant that his supplementary pension had been recalculated on the basis of its amended statutes.   The applicant, represented by counsel, brought an action against the Supplementary Pensions Office claiming payment of his original pension on 1 August 1985.         On 14 February 1986 the Karlsruhe Regional Court (Landgericht) dismissed the applicant's action.         On 3 November 1988 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.         On 20 September 1989 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) did not admit his appeal on points of law.         On 6 November 1991 a group of three judges at the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to admit the applicant's constitutional complaint on the ground that it did not offer sufficient prospect of success. On 6 December 1991 the decision was served upon the applicant's counsel, who forwarded it to the applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings regarding his supplementary pension.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was registered on 10 August 1992.         On 22 February 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.         On 2 May 1995 the Government submitted their observations.   The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 16 June 1995.   THE LAW         The applicant complains about the length of the court proceedings regarding his supplementary pension.         The Government have addressed the question of whether the applicant lodged his above complaint within the period of six months under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.         According to Article 26 (Art. 26), the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.         The Commission notes that the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 6 November 1991, rejecting the applicant's constitutional complaint, was served upon the applicant's counsel on 6 December 1991.     Accordingly, the period of six months under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention expired on 6 June 1992 (cf., mutatis mutandis, No. 14056/88, Dec. 28.5.91, D.R. 70 p. 208; No. 22714/93, Dec. 27.11.95, not published). The Commission further observes that the applicant's counsel forwarded a copy of the decision to the applicant by letter of 10 December 1991.         The Commission finds that, in his correspondence prior to expiration of the relevant time-limit, the applicant did not raise, either expressly or in substance, his   complaint about the length of the court proceedings.   However, as regards complaints not included in the initial application, the Commission recalls that the running of the period of six months is not interrupted until the date when the complaint is first submitted to the Commission (cf., No. 10293/83, Dec. 12.12.85, D.R. 45 p. 41; No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 106).   The applicant first lodged this complaint in his application form submitted on 20 July 1992, i.e. more than six months after the final decision.         Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose any particular circumstance which could have interrupted or suspended the running of time during this period of six months.         It follows that the applicant's complaint about the length of the court proceedings has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.           M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE            Secretary                                   President      to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber