CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39562/18 Edeltraud SCHLICK-LABE against Germany lodged on 15 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings under the Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations before the Berlin-Brandenburg Social Court of Appeal. The applicant had requested compensation for allegedly protracted appellate proceedings which had also been taken place before that court. The applicant complains that in the compensation proceedings the Berlin-Brandenburg Social Court of Appeal had to judge its own acts or omissions and that the Land Berlin (the defending party) was represented by a designated judge of the Berlin-Brandenburg Social Court of Appeal acting on behalf of the president of that court. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal been breached in the proceedings before the Berlin-Brandenburg Social Court of Appeal under the Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations?   In particular, could the judges assigned to decide on the length complaint be considered independent and impartial as well as to appear as such, taking into account that they had to decide on acts or omissions of judges of the same court and that the defending party was represented by a judge of the same court acting on behalf the president of that court?   2.     Did the disciplinary and career-related powers of the president of the Social Court of Appeal affect the judges’ impartiality in the proceedings at issue?   3.     Were there similar administrative orders of the Federal Government and the Länder delegating the representation of the defending party in length proceedings to a court’s president?