CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 avril 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 18117/91                     by S.G.                     against Germany          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                A. WEITZEL                F. ERMACORA                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission          Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 9 April 1991 by S.G. against Germany and registered on 24 April 1991 under file No. 18117/91;        Having regard to :   -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the     Commission ;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      16 December 1991 and the observations in reply submitted by      the applicant on 10 February 1992 ;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows: THE FACTS        The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1960 and living in Fürth.   He is represented by Mr. U. Fischer, a lawyer in Frankfurt am Main.        The applicant was working from 3 September 1979 to 2 March 1982 as an apprentice with Mercedes-Benz A.G.   By letter of 15 October 1981 the company informed the applicant that it was not in a position to offer him employment after the termination of his apprenticeship.   The applicant successfully finished his professional training programme on 22 January 1982.        He then brought a Labour Court action against Mercedes-Benz requesting the court to find that his employment with the defendant continued after 22 January 1982 and that he was to be given work as a mechanic.   He pointed out that all other apprentices had been given contracts.   He argued that the refusal in his case was arbitrary because it constituted a sanction for having expressed a political opinion.   The applicant had in fact published an article in the journal edited by the pupils of his professional training school.   The article related to a demonstration against the construction of a nuclear power plant in Brokdorf.   It stated inter alia: "We do not at all intend to dissociate ourselves from so-called militant demonstrations.   The violence exerted by the State and industry in this case justifies any kind of opposition.   This is not to be understood as an incitement to violent acts but meant to make it clear that opponents to nuclear power as well as squatters and other persons awkward for the State should not let themselves be divided into `violent' and `non-violent' camps.   The fight against nuclear death should by now involve everybody and will continue after 28 February not only in Brokdorf, but anywhere in this world."        On 23 March 1982 the Stuttgart Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht) granted the action.   Applying the principle of equal treatment (Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz) and taking into account that all other apprentices had been given employment, the Court considered that the refusal vis-à-vis the applicant was not objectively justified (sachlich gerechtfertigt) as the applicant's political opinion as expressed in the article in question did not justify the conclusion that the applicant would not carry out his work in a loyal and correct manner.        Following an appeal lodged by the defendant, the Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) of Baden-Württemberg quashed the first instance judgment on 16 September 1982 and dismissed the action.   This Court held that the principle of freedom of contract (Vertragsfreiheit) prevailed while the principle of equal treatment mainly applied to those who were given an employment contract.        An appeal on points of law (Revision) was rejected by the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) on 5 April 1984.        The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint arguing that the decisions given against him violated the principle of equality before the law and the right to protection of freedom of opinion.        The applicant was informed by the Federal Constitutional Court on 3 May 1989 that due to the Court's workload it was impossible to foresee when his case would be decided.        On 19 May 1992 the Federal Constitutional Court quashed the judgments complained of considering that they violated the applicant's right to freedom of expression.        On 11 November 1992 the Federal Labour Court gave judgment in the applicant's favour, the defendant having recognised his claim to be well-founded (Anerkennungsurteil).        On 23 February 1993 the parties in the Labour Court proceedings concluded a friendly settlement.   The applicant's former employer agreed to pay compensation in the amount of DM 80,000 for the applicant's loss of earnings.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 9 April 1991 and registered on 24 April 1991.        On 3 September 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government under Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure.        The Government's observations were submitted by letter dated 16 December 1991 and the applicant's reply by letter of 10 February 1992.        On 16 May 1992 the Commission decided to adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of the Ruiz Mateos case before the European Court of Human Rights.   Judgment in that case was given on 23 June 1993 (Eur. Court H.R., Ruiz Mateos judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262).     COMPLAINTS        Invoking Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the length of the proceedings.     THE LAW        The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings which he instituted in the spring of 1982 and which ended on 11 November 1992.   He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations      ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing      within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial      tribunal established by law."        It is uncontested that the proceedings in the present case concern the determination of a civil right.        The period to be examined under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, exceeds ten years.        After conducting a preliminary examination of the facts and the submissions of the parties, the Commission considers that the application raises complex factual and legal issues which require an examination of the merits.   The Commission concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   No other grounds for declaring the application inadmissible have been established.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission        (H.C. Krüger)                             (C.A. Nørgaard)