CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 19 janvier 1995

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 18117/91                                    S.G.                                   against                                   Germany                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 19 January 1995)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I   :   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   PART II :   SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by S.G. against Germany on 9 April 1991.   The application was registered on 24 April 1991 under file No. 18117/91.         The applicant was represented by   Mr. U. Fischer, a lawyer practising in Frankfurt am Main.         The Government of Germany were represented by their Agent, Dr. Jens Meyer-Ladewig, Federal Ministry of Justice, Bonn.   2.     On 14 April 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to       it:         a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake       together with the representatives of the parties an examination       ofthe petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the       effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all       necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the       Commission;         b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of       the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly       settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights       as defined in this Convention."   3.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 19 January 1995 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  H. DANELIUS                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYUK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G. B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Fürth.   5.     The applicant was working from 3 September 1979 to 2 March 1982 as an apprentice with a large car manufacturer.   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.   6.     He then brought a Labour Court action against the company requesting the court to find that his employment with the defendant continued after 23 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.   7.     On 23 March 1982 the Stuttgart Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht) granted the action.   8.     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.   9.     An appeal on points of law (Revision) was rejected by the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) on 5 April 1984.   10.    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.   11.    On 19 May 1992 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) quashed the judgments complained of considering that they violated the applicant's right to freedom of expression.   12.    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).   13.    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.   14.    Before the Commission the applicant, invoking Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, complained of the length of the court proceedings.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   15.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   16.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   17.    On 19 September 1994 the Commission submitted to the parties, at the request of the respondent Government, a proposal for a friendly settlement.   18.    On 22 November 1994 the parties submitted an amended version of this proposal which they had both adopted and signed and which reads as follows:   [Translation]         "     In the application No. 18117/91 introduced by S. G. the       parties, referring to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention       have, with the assistance of the European Commission of Human       Rights reached the following friendly settlement:         1.    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany pays to       the applicant as settlement for all possible claims related to       the application including costs, a lump sum of DM 14,000.         2.    The applicant declares his above mentioned application to       be without object.         3.    The applicant renounces all possible further claims against       the Federal Republic of Germany or against a Federal State which       are connected with the object of the application."     [German]         "     In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 18117/91 des       Beschwerdeführers S. G. veständigen sich die Parteien unter       Bezugnahme auf Art. 28 Abs. 1 (b) der Europäischen Konvention zum       Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter       Mitwirkung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die       nachstehende gütliche Einigung:         1.    Die Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zahlt dem       Beschwerdeführer als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaigen Ansprüche       im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Individualbeschwerde       einschließlich der Kosten einen Betrag von 14.000, --DM.         2.    Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt seine obengenannte Beschwerde       als erledigt.         3.    Der Beschwerdeführer verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung       etwaiger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Bundesrepublik       Deutschland oder gegen ein Bundesland, die mit dem Gegenstand der       Beschwerde zusammenhängen."   19.    At its session on 19 January 1995, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   20.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)