CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 septembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s5F1E3418 { width:194.59pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 56952/00 by Horst TILL against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   September 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto , President ,   Mr   G. Ress ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa - Nikolovska ,   Mr   K. Traja , judges , and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Horst Till, is a German national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Friedberg, Germany. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Weinkamm, a lawyer practising in Augsburg, Germany. In 1985, the applicant started working for the local public hospital in Friedberg as head of the anaesthesiology department. He was employed by the town of Friedberg. On 7 October 1994, following his unsuccessful attempts to institute criminal proceedings against the head of administration and the mayor of Friedberg for fraud, the competent local authorities dismissed the applicant without notice. On 30 October 1995, the Augsburg Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s request to revoke the dismissal. It found that his attempt to initiate criminal proceedings against his employer constituted a breach in the trust that existed between them, in particular because his allegations of fraud were obviously unfounded. On 2 August 1996, following the applicant’s appeal, the Munich Regional Labour Court, at an oral hearing, confirmed the decision of the Labour Court and did not admit an appeal on points of law. It pronounced this decision at the end of the hearing. Between March and November 1997, the applicant repeatedly reminded the Regional Labour Court to send him a written version of the decision. On 18 December 1997, the Regional Labour Court’s decision was served on the applicant. On 1 July 1998, the Federal Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal against the Regional Court’s decision on the ground that the applicant had failed to show that the statutory condition of diverging decisions was met. It observed that, considering the delay of sixteen months, these proceedings suffered from a procedural defect. However, this matter could have only been examined if the appeal on points of law had been admissible.   On 21 July 1999, the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint concerning, inter alia , the delay in serving the Regional Labour Court’s decision.   COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of the German court proceedings and also of the proceedings concerned, in particular about their length. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains that the decision of the Augsburg Regional Labour Court was not served on him within a reasonable time, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...everyone is entitled to a...hearing within a reasonable time...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.   2.     As regards the remainder of the application, the Court, in the light of all the material in its possession, finds that the matters complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the labour court proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.     Vincent Berger   Ireneu C abral B arreto   Registrar   President