CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 16 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt }   131 16.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Decision Bock v. Germany (application no. 22051/07)   APPLICATION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF A PETTY EXPENDITURE REJECTED AS ABUSE     Principal facts   The applicant, Stephan Bock, is a German national, born in 1951, who lives in Frankfurt (Oder). He is a civil servant working for the Land Brandenburg. In 2002 he made a request to the Land under the medical aid scheme for civil servants ( Beihilfe ) to be reimbursed part of the costs, namely 7.99 euros (EUR), he had paid for magnesium tablets prescribed by his physician. The request was refused. After his objection against this decision had been dismissed, Mr Bock brought proceedings against the Land before the administrative court in November 2002, claiming that the tablets were eligible for aid. As there had not been a decision in his case by January 2006, he lodged a complaint of inactivity with the administrative court of appeal, which he later withdrew after that court had informed him that his complaint was not admissible. He subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming that the administrative court was taking no action, which the Federal Constitutional Court, by decision of April 2007, refused to admit. In December 2007, the administrative court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s action.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the administrative court was excessive and that German law does not provide for an effective legal remedy against the excessive length of court proceedings. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 May 2007.   The decision was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court recalled that under Article 35 § 3 it may declare inadmissible an application which it considered an abuse of the right of application.   It first noted that there was a disproportion between, on the one hand, the pettiness of the amount in question and the fact that the proceedings concerned a dietary supplement, not a pharmaceutical, and, on the other hand, the extensive use of court proceedings, including the appeal to an international court which was burdened with an overload of cases and before which there was a large number of applications pending that raised serious human rights issues. The Court further observed that proceedings as the one at issue also contribute to the congestion of the courts at domestic level and thereby form one of the causes for the excessive length of court proceedings.   The Court also considered that the applicant was in a comfortable financial situation – with a monthly salary of more than EUR 4,500 at the time – and that the proceedings did not involve a question of principle, as was demonstrated by the fact that after the first instance dismissal the applicant did not appeal.   Finally, the Court noted that it had already dealt with the issue of excessive length of court proceedings in numerous cases, including in particular cases against Germany. It had thereby both laid out the principles of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 and specified the obligation arising for the German Government with regard to the lack of an effective remedy against excessively long court proceedings, which the latter had acknowledged as a structural deficiency.   The Court therefore unanimously held that the application had to be considered an abuse of the right of application and therefore rejected as inadmissible.   ***   The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.