CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .sA6388245 { width:229.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 55899/00 by Bernhard LAMMERSMANN against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 April 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   L. Caflisch , President ,   Mr   G. Ress ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja judges ,   and   Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows:   THE FACTS The applicant, Bernhard Lammersmann, is a German national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Werder, Germany.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Following administrative proceedings in which he complained about fees (about 70 German marks) imposed by the local chimney sweep for measuring the amount of waste gas in his house, the applicant filed a complaint before the Potsdam Administrative Court on 12 December 1997. He also requested an interim measure so that he would not have to pay these fees in the future. Starting October 1998, the applicant sent several letters to the Potsdam Administrative Court demanding that a public hearing be held as soon as possible. In its answers, the Administrative Court stated that, due to its workload, such a hearing would not take place before the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000, while denying that his case was not being dealt with in a reasonable time. The correspondence between the court and the applicant continued until the end of 1999, when the court postponed a public hearing until the beginning of the next year. On 11 January 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint, in which he objected to the length of the proceedings before the Administrative Court. On 14 August, the Potsdam Administrative Court rejected a motion by the applicant alleging bias on its part. On 15 August 2000, a hearing was held before the Potsdam Administrative Court, which the applicant did not attend. Following this hearing, his application was rejected on the ground that the fees imposed by the chimney sweep were justified. On 27 October 2000, the Brandenburg Administrative Court of Appeal refused to entertain the applicant’s appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 §1 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. He submits that the administrative proceedings leading to court proceedings began in 1997 and that by 2000, no hearing date had been fixed. THE LAW The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings before the Potsdam Administrative Court and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Court notes that the German court proceedings at issue concerned fees imposed by the local chimney sweep. The activities of chimney sweeps are mandatory, i. e. prescribed by the State, at regular intervals, to ensure the protection of both the inhabitants of the premises in question and of the public. Despite the fact that the fees are fixed in regulations issued by the Brandenburg Ministry for Economics, Middle Class Matters and Technology ( Minister für Wirtschaft, Mittelstand und Technologie ), they are in the nature of services rendered rather than of a tax stricto sensu (see, by way of comparison,   Ferrazzini v. Italy, no. 44759/98,   judgment of 12 July 2001, § 21). Moreover, even though chimney sweeps perform tasks of a public interest, they are, essentially, plying a private trade. In the light of this, the Court will proceed on the basis that Article 6 § 1 was applicable to the present case. As regards the period to be taken into account in this context, the Court observes that although the applicant had initiated administrative court proceedings on 12 December 1997, the first hearing in this matter took place on 15   August 2000, when the Potsdam Administrative Court rejected his claim. The proceedings terminated with the decision rendered by the Brandenburg Administrative Court of Appeal on 27 October 2000. They thus have lasted altogether two years, ten months and sixteen days. The Court recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation. In this instance those circumstances call for a global assessment so that the Court does not consider it necessary to consider these questions in detail (see, among other authorities, the Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, pp. 23-24, § 72; the Ferraro v. Italy judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 197, pp. 9-10, § 17)   The Court considers that the case was not complex as it concerned a dispute on a minor sum of fees imposed by the local chimney sweep. The period of two years and eight months before the Potsdam Administrative Court might seem to be abnormal in the instant case. However, having regard to all circumstances of the case, this period is not so long as to warrant the conclusion that the total duration of the proceedings was excessive (see, mutatis mutandis , the Vernillo v. Italy judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 15, § 39). It follows that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.     Vincent Berger   Lucius Caflisch   Registrar   President