CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mars 2008

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 12923/03, 19283/03, 24647/03, 29022/03, 29032/03, 39081/03, 24918/04, 26164/04, 7839/05, 19341/05, 33316/05 and 16219/06 by Gotthard KLOSE and others against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   March   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Snejana Botoucharova,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Rait Maruste,   Renate Jaeger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged between 7 April 2003 and 20 April 2006, Having regard to the partial decision of 25 September 2007 to join the applications, to adjourn the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the length of proceedings in respect of the applicant Mrs Turek, to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to declare the applications inadmissible for the remainder, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Maria Turek, is a German national who was born in 1930 and lives in Berlin. She is represented before the Court by Mr   K.   H.   Christoph, a lawyer practising in Berlin. The German Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr   H.   J.   Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 November 1991 the Berlin Insurance Fund for Salaried Employees ( Versicherungsanstalt für Angestellte ) fixed the applicant’s pension rights according to Article 307a of the Social Code n o VI. On 15 February 1994 the Insurance Fund rejected the applicant’s administrative appeal. On 1 December 1995 the Berlin Social Court rejected the applicant’s action. On 14 April 1997 the Berlin Social Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the Social Court. On 6 May 1998 the Federal Social Court granted the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. On 29 June 2000, after having held a hearing, the Federal Social Court declared the applicant’s complaint partially admissible and declared it inadmissible for the remainder. On 11 May 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint in a leading decision. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts concerning her pension claims. THE LAW On 11 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: I, Mr H. J. Behrens , Ministerialrat , Deputy Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Germany offer to pay ex gratia 6,000 euros to Ms Maria Turek with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 14 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant (English translation from German): “I, Mr Karl-Heinz Christoph, legal counsel, note that the Government of Germany are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 6,000 euros to Ms Maria Turek with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Germany in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President