CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60 January 2004 Voggenreiter v. Germany - 47169/99 Judgment 8.1.2004 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Determination (civil) Application by an individual to the Federal Constitutional Court to challenge a law: violation Facts : The applicant was the owner of a freight-tariff control company and worked as a tariff supervisor until the entry into force in January 1994 of a law abolishing tariffs for rail traffic, which made her occupation superfluous and forced her to close down her business. In December 1993 she challenged the constitutionality of the law in the Federal Constitutional Court, complaining of the consequent termination of her business activities and relying on the constitutional rights of freedom to practise a profession and of property. In June 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to order the temporary suspension of the law but held that, as to the merits, the applicant’s appeal was neither manifestly inadmissible nor manifestly ill-founded and raised serious issues regarding the scope and extent of freedom of occupation. In November 2000 the court dismissed the appeal, pointing out that the law had not prohibited the activities of freight-tariff control companies but had merely abolished tariffs, while acknowledging that that had rendered the applicant’s occupation superfluous. Law : Article 6 § 1 – Applicability : Although in the instant case the State could not have incurred civil liability (and been ordered to pay compensation) in the event of a decision allowing the applicant’s appeal, it was clear from the decisions delivered that the dispute had concerned the existence or the scope or manner of exercise of rights that could be said, on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law, namely the applicant’s right to practise her profession and her right of property, both of which were safeguarded by the Basic Law. It had not been established that a decision in the applicant’s favour would have resulted in the repeal of the law and the restoration of the tariff system, but the respondent Government had not shown that such a decision would have had no effect on the applicant’s occupational status. If the Federal Constitutional Court had declared the law unconstitutional, it would have been entitled to order the legislature to make provision for compensation in certain cases or for a transition period during which the applicant would have had a better opportunity to adjust to the changes; it could also have ordered interim measures. Consequently, the proceedings had been directly decisive for the applicant’s rights, and the freedom to practise one’s profession and, above all, to continue to practise it was a “civil” right. In short, although the proceedings had solely concerned the constitutionality of the law, Article 6 applied. Reasonable time : The period under consideration, which had begun when the appeal had been received by the Federal Constitutional Court, amounted to six years, eleven months and eleven days. Although, as the Government had argued, that court had a specific role in the German system, the time taken to examine the applicant’s appeal had been excessive. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded specified sums for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes