CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 juin 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. 20950/92                       by M. P.                       against Germany         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 28 June 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  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                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS              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 June 1992 by M. P. against Germany and registered on 16 November 1992 under file No. 20950/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a German citizen born in 1937 and living in Munich.   She is represented by Mr. P. Kloer, a lawyer practising in Munich.         The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant and which may be deduced from the documents lodged with the application, may be summarised as follows:   1.     The applicant is the owner of inherited real estate which is leased to an Allotment Garden Association (Kleingartenverein) in Munich.   The lease was concluded for the period 1 January 1955 until 31 December 1979.   It concerned 44,271 square metres of real estate. The rent was 0.10 DM per square metre, per year.         By letter of 22 November 1976 the applicant denounced the lease with effect from 31 December 1979.   The tenant association disputed the applicant's right to denounce the lease.   Consequently the applicant brought an action for the eviction of the tenant.   She was, however, unsuccessful at first and second instance.         On appeal on points of law (Revision) the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) decided on 24 May 1985 (V ZR 11/84) to adjourn the proceedings in order to submit the question to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) whether or not Section 16 (3) of the Federal Allotment Garden Act (Bundeskleingartengesetz) was compatible with the right to the protection of property, as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Section 16 provides that the validity of certain leases be extended until 31 March 1987.         The proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court were still pending when the application was introduced.   2.     In 1980 the applicant brought another action against the Allotment Garden Association requesting a higher rent, from 1 January 1980 until 31 March 1983, for the amount of DM 454,287.43. The action was granted by the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht) on 30 August 1990.   That court considered that the lease had to be adapted to the new situation, as the former price regulation was no longer valid.   The court considered a rent of DM 3.25 per square metre, per year, to be equitable.         This judgment was partly quashed on appeal by the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 17 May 1991.   The action was dismissed in respect of a claim for DM 239,560.50.   To this extent the action was considered to be time-barred.         The applicant's appeal on points of law (Revision) was rejected on 30 January 1992 by the Federal Court on the grounds that it neither raised any issues of general importance, nor offered any prospects of success.         The applicant's subsequent constitutional complaint was rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court on 7 May 1992 as offering no prospects of success.   It is stated in this decision that the judgements complained of did not disclose any violation of constitutional law.   The finding of the appellate court that the applicant's claim was partly time-barred was, from the point of constitutional law, unobjectionable.   The fact that a constitutional complaint relating to provisions of the Allotment Garden Act was still pending was not a reason not to apply the provisions on time-limits within which certain claims had to be raised. This is because the constitutional proceedings in question did not prevent the applicant from pursuing her claims before the civil courts.   In fact her present action, although unsuccessful, showed that the civil courts did not reject the claim for the reason that a constitutional complaint was pending relating to the Allotment Garden Act.         The Constitutional Court further stated that the possible unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Allotment Garden Act would not justify considering the present civil claims of the applicant under Article 14 of the Basic Law.   Therefore the more generous time-limit of thirty years within which such claims, based on alleged violations of property rights, have to be raised did not apply.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court as regards her original civil action which was adjourned by the Federal Court pending the outcome of the Constitutional Court proceedings.         Furthermore, she complains that the appellate courts wrongly refused to consider her second claim based on a violation of her constitutional right to protection of property, which would have had the benefit of a thirty year limitation period. In this respect she alleges a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1, read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains about the length of the first set of civil proceedings which she instituted in 1980 in order to have a tenant evicted.   These proceedings have lasted for about fourteen years and are apparently still pending.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees, inter alia, a fair hearing of civil claims within a reasonable time.         The Commission considers that a full examination of this aspect of the case can only be made after its communication to the respondent Government, and in the light of the parties' written observations on admissibility and merits.   2.     The applicant also complains that part of her second civil action was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred.         The Commission recalls that with regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, its only task, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77 ; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).         It is true that the applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, which guarantee the right to property and freedom from discrimination respectively.   The Commission notes, however, that, according to the Federal Constitutional Court, the applicant's claim could not be based on Article 14 (Art. 14) of the German Basic Law and, consequently, the civil courts did not violate constitutional law by not applying the thirty year time-limit within which such claims may be raised.   There is nothing to show that this reasoning is in any way arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to existing case-law.         The Commission concludes that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked by the applicant. It follows that the applicant's second complaint is manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint       about the length of the first civil action;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the Commission                  President of the Commission         (H. C. KRÜGER)                               (C. A. NØRGAARD)