CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .s464AF326 { width:24.34pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1996 Süßmann v. Germany - 20024/92 Judgment 16.9.1996 [GC] Article 6 Constitutional proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of proceedings in the Federal Constitutional Court in a case concerning pension rights: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE Delimited by Commission's decision on admissibility: Court has no jurisdiction to revive issues declared inadmissible. II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Court aware of special role and status of constitutional courts which, in those States that have made provision for right of individual petition, afford additional legal protection to citizens. Case-law establishes that constitutional court proceedings do not in principle fall outside scope of Article 6 §   1. Instant case concerned length of proceedings only in a constitutional court – Article 6 §   1 applicable if their outcome was decisive for civil rights and obligations – dispute as to amount of applicant's pension entitlement concerned a civil right – a decision by Federal Constitutional Court to quash the impugned decisions would have led to applicant's reinstatement in his rights and was therefore directly decisive for the civil right in question. Federal Constitutional Court's decision taken in preliminary proceedings, but after examination of applicant's submissions on the merits. Conclusion : applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance 1.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: date of applicant's appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court. End: date on which applicant was notified of decision. Total: three years, four months and three weeks. 2.   Applicable criteria (a)   Complexity of the case Case of some complexity: one of twenty-four constitutional appeals raising similar issues and capable of affecting pensions of large numbers of German civil servants. (b)   Conduct of the applicant Did not cause any delay in the proceedings. (c)   Conduct of the Federal Constitutional Court Contracting States under duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of requirements of Article 6 § 1, including obligation to hear cases within reasonable time – however when applied to a Constitutional Court, obligation could not be construed in the same way as for an ordinary court. Principle of proper administration of justice enshrined in Article 6 of special relevance in this case – reasonable for the Federal Constitutional Court to group together the twenty-four cases pending before it and it was entitled to give priority to other appeals, stemming from German reunification. (d)   What was at stake for the applicant. In view of his age, proceedings were of undeniable importance for him, but prejudice not such as to impose on court in question duty to deal with his case as a matter of very great urgency. Conclusion : no violation (fourteen votes to six).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes