CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 19 octobre 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 }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22230/93                       by Erik DAMM                       against Denmark         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:              MM.    H. DANELIUS, President                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 4 May 1993 by Erik Damm against Denmark and registered on 13 July 1993 under file No. 22230/93;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 21 June 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.         The applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1941. He resides in Copenhagen.         In April 1983 the applicant instituted proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) against his previous legal counsel in order to obtain damages for alleged procedural errors committed by counsel in a previous law-suit between the applicant and a private company.         On 24 April 1991 the High Court dismissed the case as the applicant had failed to comply with the Court's order to engage a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings. This decision was quashed by the Supreme Court (Højesteret) on 6 August 1991.         On 25 January 1995 the High Court dismissed the case once more, now since the applicant had not provided the necessary security to cover the costs of the court appointed counsel. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.         While the applicant's civil suit was pending in the High Court he wrote to the Ministry of Industry on 11 February 1993 and suggested that the rules governing lawyers' liabilities be changed.   However, the Ministry replied on 4 March 1993 that this was a matter for the Ministry of Justice to examine.         The applicant also contacted the Ministry of Justice suggesting that the Ministry take certain initiatives in changing the rules relating to lawyers' liabilities.   On 22 October 1993 the Ministry replied that it had taken note of the applicant's point of view but found no reason to take any further action.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains of the length of the court proceedings instituted by him in 1983. He submits that the case was not complex and maintains that it was the defendant's strategy to exhaust him by abusing the rules of procedure and thereby prolonging the proceedings. The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   2.     The applicant also complains of the fact that the Ministries of Justice and Industry refused to initiate any legislative changes, although he pointed out that the rules governing lawyers' liabilities were being abused. He invokes in this respect Article 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 4 May 1993 and registered on 13 July 1993.         On 6 April 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the application in so far as it concerns the length of the proceedings and invited the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits thereof.         The Government submitted their observations on 21 June 1994. The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 28 July 1994.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark and invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)         "In the determination of his civil rights ... everyone is       entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a]       ... tribunal ... ."         Article 13 (Art. 13)         "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this       Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy       before a national authority notwithstanding that the       violation has been committed by persons acting in an       official capacity."         With regard to the period of time to be considered the Commission recalls that the proceedings commenced in April 1983 when the applicant instituted proceedings in the High Court. They ended on 25 January 1995 when the High Court dismissed the case. Accordingly, the proceedings lasted almost twelve years in one court.         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the parties' conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.   2.     The applicant also complains, under Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention, of the fact that the Ministries of Justice and Industry refuse to initiate any legislative changes in respect of the rules governing lawyers' liabilities.         After considering this complaint, as submitted by the applicant, the Commission finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,       the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the       proceedings;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                          (H. DANELIUS)