CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juillet 2000

.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 20 July 2000 Klein v. Germany - 33379/96 Judgment 27.7.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings relating to non-payment of a special contribution forming part of an electricity bill: Article 6 applicable Facts : Proceedings were brought against the applicant in December 1985 for non-payment of a coal-mining contribution which formed part of his electricity bill. The court found against the applicant in April 1986 and ordered him to pay 141 marks (DEM). The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming that the contribution at issue was unconstitutional. In October 1994, after obtaining observations from various authorities, the Second Division of the Federal Constitutional Court found that the provisions underlying the contribution amounted to an inadmissible special levy. It quashed the judgment against the applicant and ordered that the unconstitutional provisions should not be applied after 31 December 1995. It remitted the case to the District Court, which in February 1995 ordered the applicant to pay around 80 marks to the electricity company, since the legislation remained in force until the end of that year. The applicant’s further constitutional complaint was rejected in August 1995. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The case concerns not only the length of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, but also the length of proceedings before the civil courts and the dispute before the civil courts was of a pecuniary nature and undeniably concerned a civil right. Article 6 is therefore applicable. The length of the proceedings to be examined is around nine   years and eight months, the main delay being a period of over eight years for the first round of constitutional proceedings. The case was of some complexity - the scope of the judgment went well beyond the particular case, the Constitutional Court having obtained observations from various authorities. However, a chronic overload, like the one the Constitutional Court has laboured under since the end of the 1970s, cannot justify excessive length of proceedings. Reunification can have played only a secondary role in this particular case, which had been pending before the Constitutional Court for more than four years when the reunification treaty entered into force. While the amount at issue was minor, the constitutionality of the law in issue raised a question of principle for a great number of citizens. Despite the complexity of the case, the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was not reasonable. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of costs.   © 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