Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840315-932081
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 20:20:51+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9320/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-15;9320.81 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : D.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICA7ION / REQUÃTE NÂ° 9320/8 1 D . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY D . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGNE DECISION of 15 March 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 25 of the Convention : The question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention is relevant throughout the ezamination of the application _ 7he answer to this question depends largely on the legal interest which the applicant has in a determination of his allegations of Convention breaches . In assessing this interest, any material or inunaterial damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged violation must be taken into account. /n the present case, there was a favourable judicial senlement which remedied any prejudice resulting from a possible violation . A rticle 26 of the Convention : 7he exhaustion of domestic remedies rule demonstrates that it is the Contracting States' responsibilityfirst to redress any violation of the Convention .
A rticle 25 de la Convention :!a question de savoir si un individu peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation de la Convention se pose en tout Ã©tat de l'esamen de la requÃªte. fa rÃ©ponse Ã cette question dÃ©pend dans une large mesure de l'intÃ©rÃªt du requÃ©rant Ã faire statuer sur ses allÃ©gations de violation de la Convention . Pour apprÃ©cier cet intÃ©rÃ©t, il convient de prendre en considÃ©ration tout prÃ©judice matÃ©riel ou moral subi du fait de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e . En l'espÃ¨ce, transaction judiciaire favorable remÃ©diant Ã l'ensemble du prÃ©judice rÃ©sultant d'une Ã©ventuelle violation .
Article 26 de la Convention : La rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours intemes illustre qu'il appanient en premier lieu aur Etats contractants de redresser les violations de la Convention .
((ranÃ§ais : voir p . 32 )
1 . Introductio n The facts of the case, as they appear from the parties' submissions and documents in the case-file, may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1916 and residing in Vienenburg (Federal Republic of Germany) . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr O . H . L . Messer, a lawyer practising in Kehl . The applicant was the owner of a company specialised in the production of long-lasting bread . He employed more than two hundred people working in three different factories . From 1957 to 1972 the applicant delivered bread to the Federal Army (Bundeswehr) . The orders were made by the Federal Supply Office (Bundesamt fÃ¼r Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung) in Koblenz, which is part of the Federal Ministry of Defence . In 1962 difficulties arose in the relations between the applicant and the Federal Ministry of Defence . Bread deliveries were refused or accepted with delays, on the grounds that they did not correspond to the samples or were defective, and that the production plants were not in conformity with hygienic standards . The applicant was of the opinion that these objections were unjustified and arbitrary . In 1972 the applicant's company went bankrupt . In 1974 bankruptcy proceedings were discontinued in default of bankruptcy assets . By a letter dated 7 March 1973 the applicant lodged an action for damages with the Bonn Regional Court (Landgericht) against the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry of Defence, and against nine of its officials . The applicant claimed damages of more than 19 million DM . At the same time he requested to be granted legal aid . 2 . Survey of the proceeding s The action and the request for legal aid were received by the Bonn Regional Court on 3 April 1973 .
On 12 December 1973 the case was transferred, by reason of competence, to the Koblenz Regional Court which, by a decision of 3 October 1974, dismissed the applicant's request for legal aid . The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against this decision . A constitutional appeal was declared inadmissible by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 8 April 1975, on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints . On 1 8 September 1975 the applicant pursued his action reducing his claim to DM 160 000 . By a judgment of 8 January 1 976 the Koblenz Regional Court dismissed the action . The applicant appealed against this judgment . By a decision of the Koblenz Coun of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), dated 4 July 1977 he was granted legal aid concerning claims amounting to DM 95 000 . On 7 March 1979 the Koblenz Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal . The applicant appealed on points of law (Revision) to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) . A request for legal aid was successful insofar as it concemed a sum of DM 119 000 . For the remainder of the applicant's action, legal aid was refused . On 30 April 1980 the Federal Court of Justice decided to allow the applicant's appeal on points of law as far as legal aid was granted, and as far as his claims concerned an additional sum of DM 20 000 . To the extent to which the applicant's appeal was not allowed, that is in the amount of DM 31 000, the decision of the Federal Court of Justice was final . On 2 January 1981 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant on the grounds that it was partly inadmissible and partly did not offer sufficient prospects of success . By a judgment of 12 January 1981 the Federal Court of Justice quashed the judgment of the Koblenz Coun of Appeal as far as it concerned claims amounting to DM 129 000, and to that extent remitted the case back to that Court .
On 23 May 1981 the applicant extended his still pending claims to DM 10 966 644 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. Finally, on 25 March 1983 the parties reached a settlement before the Koblenz Court of Appeal . The settlement was in the following terms : "Settlement" : 1 . In compensation for all of the applicant's claims arising out of the facts on which his action and the pleadings by which he extended his action are based ,
the defendant pays to the plaintiff a sum of DM 2,4 million (DM 2 400 000) . This sum is composed of the following items in dispute :
(list of the different amounts relating to that part of the applicant's action which has been remitted by the Federal Court of Justice to the Koblenz Court of Appeal) . 11 . For this amount interest of 9 .5% is paid with effect from I January 1976 . In order to satisfy all the interest claims of the applicant for the period up to 31 December 1975 the defendant pays a lump sum of DM 320 00 0
Ill . . . . IV . Possible claims of the plaintiff which may arise out of application No . 9320/81 before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg are not affected by this settlement . V. . . . ..
The total sum of DM 4 371 000 was paid by the Federal Republic of Germany to the applicant's lawyer on 28 March 1983 . COMPLAINTS AND INITIAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICAN T 1 . The applicant complains of the proceedings before the couns, in pa rt icular insofar as his action for damages was dismissed by a final judgment in an amount of approximately DM 15 760 000, this part of his claim not having been allowed for an appeal on points of law . In this context he invokes Article 6, para . I of the Convention . a . He alleges that his action for damages was transferred, contrary to the legal provisions then in force, from the Bonn Regional Court to that in Koblenz, which in his view was not competent to decide in his case . b . He complains, in particular, that he was denied a fair trial in the proceedings before the Koblenz Regional Court and Court of Appeal . These Courts had incorrectly interpreted contracts which had been concluded between him and the Federal Republic of Germany during the period from 1967 to 1972, and have refused to hear witnesses and to consider documentary evidence . The evidence proposed by him and refused by the courts would have been essential for the Courts' conclusions . This results from the fact that his appeal on points of law was allowed to the extent in which the Court of Appeal had ordered to secure evidence . Had the evidence proposed by him fully been accepted by the courts, and had the decision to secure evidence been given at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and not only in 1979 when some witnesses had already died and other witnesses had to remember events which had taken place in 1962, his case would have taken another course .
c. The applicant complains, furthermore, that the Courts relied incorrectly on evidence which officials of the Federal Ministry of Defence had obtained in an illegal manner . These officials had acted in breach of their duties and had made reports on questions which were outside their competence . The applicant is of the opinion that by basing theirjudgments on the evidence so obtained the Couns violated the principle of equality of arms and, consequently, the right to a fair hearing . He contests that the Court of Appeal considered the behaviour of the officials in question solely as minor offences of their duties . d. The applicant next complains that the judgment of the Koblenz Court of Appeal, dated 7 March 1979, does not contain any grounds relating to the dismissal of a particular part of his claim to which however, reference is made in the part of the judgment conceming the facts . e. The applicant sees a further violation of his right to a fair hearing in the fact that the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on points of law, without an examination of the merits, insofar as his appeal was not allowed . 2 . The applicant also complains, under Article 6, para . I of the Convention, that his case before the GÃ©rman Couns has not been determined within a reasonable time . The proceedings in hiscase started on 3 April 1973, when he introduced hi s action for damages before the Bonn Regional Court, and partly terminated when the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, dated 2 January 1981, was served on him on 23 January 1981 . This part of the proceedings lasted, thus, for 7 years, 10 months and 22 days . According to him, his case was not complicated as it concerned exclusively bread deliveries to the Federal Supply Office . It would have been possible to decide speedily in his case if the Courts had, as soon as possible, considered the necessary evidence . However, between 1973 and 1977 evidence was not taken at all, and in 1977 and 1979 solely in a very insufficient way . With regard to his request for legal aid, dated 7 March 1973, the Koblenz Regional Court had not decided before 3 October 1974, that is 18 months after he had made that request . Only on 17 December 1974 this action was transmitted to the defendants, that is 20 months after the date of the action . The applicant states that he has repeatedly taken steps to speed up the proceedings and has also complained of their length to the Federal Constitutional Court . However, all his efforts were in vain .
The effect of the length of the proceedings on the applicant must be considered as tragic . Had the proceedings been tertninated after one or two years, he would have been in the position to find a new means of livelihood . However, in April 1981 he attained the age of 65 . and had no chance to exercise successfully a profession . 3 . Complaining of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant refers to illegal interferences in the internal affairs of his private company by officials of the Federal Supply Office . As a result of their behaviour, incorrect reports concerning the production plants were established and unjustified objections raised in respect of the quality of the bread deliveries . Delays in placing orders, refusals to accept bread deliveries and, finally, the closing of his company, were further consequences . Funhetmore, one of the officials, who on several occasions was invited to the applicant's house, had instituted unfounded criminal proceedings for bribery against the applicant, who has never been informed in detail of the accusations made . However, the mere fact that criminal proceedings had been pending against him had caused him a considerable prejudice . Another official violated the applicant's private and family life by establishing extra marital relations with his wife, as a consequence of which disciplinary measures were taken against the official concerned . 4 . The applicant complains of a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention . He maintains that he could not express any longer his opinion conceming the actions of the officials of the Federal Supply Office, because he was economically dependent on them . 5 . He alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, considering that the institution of completely unfounded criminal proceedings against him was discriminatory . The deterioration of his relations with the Federal Supply Office, due to the acts of its officials, had a further discriminatory effect . 6 . The applicant finally invokes Article I of the First Protocol . The refusal of the Federal Supply Office to pay compensation to the applicant for the damages suffered, as a result of the attitude of its officials, led to the bankruptcy of his company, and constitutes a violation of his property right .
THE LAW 1 . The applicant's complaints concerned the length and the fairness of the proceedings before the German courts . He has also complained of a violation of his righ t
to respect for his private and family life, of his right to freedom of expression, of discriminatory treatment and of a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . He has invoked Articles 6, para . 1, 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention, and Article I of the First Protocol . The Commission has first had regard to the Government's submission that, by reason of the settlement of 25 March 1983, the applicant obtained reasonable and adequate redress for any disadvantages which might be derived from the length of the court proceedings in his case, and that, consequently . he could no longer claim to be, or to have been, a victim of a violation of the Convention in this respect . In essence, the determination of the above issue depends on the concept of "victim" in the sense of Article 25, para . 1, and the ratio legis of Article 26 . Article 25, para . I provides that, "The Convnission may receive petitions from any person . . . claiming to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in this Convention . . ." . Anicle 26 provides that, "The Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised principles of international law . . ." . As shown by the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies it first falls to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention . In the present case the Commission notes that, in accordance with the settlement of 25 March 1983, the applicant was paid compensation of DM 2,4 million . Moreover, for this amount, interest of DM 1 971 100 was paid, namely DM 320 000 up to 31 December 1975, and 9 .5% interest with effect from 1 January 1976 . In this context, the Commission points out that, under the German Civil Code, the legal interest rate generally is not higher than 4% . It is true that it is not expressly mentioned in the settlement that the substantial payment of interest also concemed compensation for the length of the proceedings . However, it would appear that the length of the proceedings was, in fact, one element of relevance for the agreement of the interest to be paid . Furthermore, following the agreement reached on 25 March 1983, the applicant was placed in a better position as at the time when he reduced his claim on 19 September 1975 from approximately 19 million DM to DM 160 000 or when the Federal Court of Justice remitted his action to the Koblenz Court of Appeal in the amount of DM 129 000 on 12 January 1981 . The Commission further notes that the above settlement was proposed by the Court and accepted by the parties at a hearing which had been fixed after the Commission's decision of 7 May 1982 to communicate the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application .
The question of whether or not an applicant can claim to be a victim under Article 25 of the Convention of the violation alleged, is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention ( cf . Eur . Cou rt H .R ., Klass Case, judgment of 6 .9 .78, paras . 30 et seq .) . The answer to this question depends largely on the legal interest which the applicant is seen to have in a determination by the Convention organs that his Convention rights have been breached . In this connection, the Commission must take into account any material or immate rial damage which the applicant might have suffered as a result of the violation alleged . In the present case it is clear that, when the application was lodged with the Commission, the applicant had a legal interest in a determination that he was be ing denied the guarantees of Article 6, para . I of the Convention in pursuing his civil rights before the German cou rt s in his action for damages . However, the Commission considers that the practical effect of the above settlement was that the applicant's claims against the defendant before the German courts were satisfied to a great extent . 2 . The Commission recognises that there may be situations in which a pa rt y to proceedings, that have been protracted beyond a reasonable time or that have be en unfair, might suffer consequences which are not redressed by an ultimate decision in his favour . In fact, in the present case, the applicant has suggested that the se tt lement must be seen in the light of the pa rt icular circumstances of this case, and appeared to imply that difficulties of proof, and the expectation that the proceedings might still continue for a considerable time, have influenced him to accept a lower sum than he would otherwise have obtained . However, in the Commission's view the applicant did not act under constraint when he renounced the possibility of obtaining higher compensation and a judgment on the merits, in accordance with the guarantees of Article 6, para . I of the Convention . Furthermore, nothing has been put forward to indicate that the applicant suffered disadvantages from the conduct of the proceedings by the German courts, which have not been covered by the settlement in question . In this context, the Commission has had regard to the applicant's submission that he is a victim of a violation of the Convention insofar as his action for damages had been definitely dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice on 30 April 1980 . The Commission notes that the parties have expressly agreed to exempt from the settlement any possible claims which might be derived from the present application . On the other hand, the payment provided for in the settlement covered all of the applicant's claims arising out of the facts on which his action for damages, an d
the pleadings by which he extended his action, were based .The Commission recalls that the applicant extended his claim before the Koblenz Court of Appeal to DM 10 966 644 on 23 May 1981 . Although the amount of compensation to be paid in the settlement wa s calculated solely on the basis of that part of the action which has been remitted to the Koblenz Court of Appeal . the Commission considers that the settlement covered the applicant's action for damages as a whole, that means the dismissed part as well as the part which has been remitted for a new decision . The favourable tertns of the settlement would appear to have been proposed also in view of any defects in the proceedings, and had the purpose of terminating the long and complicated proceedings to the satisfaction of both parties . The Commission concludes, therefore, that following the settlement of 25 March 1983, the applicant no longer has any complaint under the Convention that could be remedied by pursuing his application . It follows that the applicant can no longer claim, under Article 25 of the Convention, to be a victim of a violation, by the Federal Republic of Germany, of any of the rights set forth in the Convention, and that the application is manifestly illfounded, within the meaning of Article 27, para . 2 n
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT (Extraits ) Introduction Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ressortent des exposÃ©s des pa rt ies et des piÃ¨ces du dossier, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant allemand, nÃ© en 1916 et habitant Vienenburg (RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne) . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par M^ O .H .L . Messer . avocat Ã Kehl .
Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait propriÃ©taire d'une entreprise spÃ©cialisÃ©e dans la production de pain de longue conservation . Il employait plus de 200 personnes travaillant dans trois usines diffÃ©rentes . De 1957 Ã 1972, le requÃ©rant a livrÃ© du pain Ã l'ArmÃ©e fÃ©dÃ©rale (Bundeswehr) . Les commandes Ã©taient passÃ©es par le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de fournitures Ã l'ArmÃ©e (Bundesamt fÃ¼r Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung) de Coblence, qui dÃ©pend du MinistÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la DÃ©fense . En 1962, des difftcultÃ©s surgirent dans les rapports entre le requÃ©rant et le MinistÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la DÃ©fense . Les livraisons de pain furent refusÃ©es ou acceptÃ©es avec retard au motif qu'elles ne correspondaient pas aux Ã©chantillons soumis, prÃ©sentaient des dÃ©fauts ou que les usines de fabrication ne rÃ©pondaient pas aux norroes d'hygiÃ¨ne . Le requÃ©rant estimait ces objections arbitraires et injustifiÃ©es . En 1972, l'entreprise du requÃ©rant fit faillite . En 1974, la procÃ©dure de faillite fut arrÃ©tÃ©e, par dÃ©faut de biens . Par lettre du 7 mars 1973, le requÃ©rant engagea une action en responsabilitÃ© devant le tribunal rÃ©gional de Bonn (Landgericht) contre la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, reprÃ©sentÃ©e par le MinistÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la DÃ©fense et neuf de ses fonctionnaires . Il rÃ©clamait plus de 19 millions de DM de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts et demandait simultanÃ©ment le bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'assistance judiciaire . 2 . AperÃ§u de la procÃ©dure
L'acte introductif et la demande d'assistance judiciaire parvinrent au tribunal rÃ©gional de Bonn le 3 avril 1973 . Le 12 dÃ©cembre 1973, l'affaire fut transfÃ©rÃ©e pour raisons de compÃ©tence au tribunal rÃ©gional de Coblence qui, par dÃ©cision du 3 octobre 1974, rejeta la demande d'assistance judiciaire formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . Celui-ci fut dÃ©boutÃ© de son recours contre cette dÃ©cision . Le 8 avril 1975, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale (Bundesverfassungsgericht) dÃ©clara irrecevable un recours constitutionnel au motif que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas dÃ©veloppÃ© ses griefs . Le 18 septembre 1975, le requÃ©rant reprit son action en rÃ©duisant sa demande Ã 160 000 DM . Par jugement du 8 janvier 1976, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Coblence rejeta cette demande . Le requÃ©rant fit appel . Par dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel de Coblence (Oberlandesgericht) en date du 4 juillet 1977, il fut adntis au bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'assistancejudiciaire pour faire valoir des prÃ©tentions chiffrÃ©es Ã 95 000 DM . Le 7 mars 1979, la cour d'appel de Coblence rejeta l'appel .
Le requÃ©rant se pourvut en cassation (Revision) devant la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice (Bundesgerichtshof) . Sa demande d'assistance judiciaire fut accordÃ©e pour autant que le litige portait sur une somme de 119 000 DM . L'assistance judiciaire fut refusÃ©e pour le surplus . Le 30 avril 1980, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice dÃ©cida de faire droit au pourvoi du requÃ©rant dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'assistance judiciaire Ã©tait accordÃ©e et oÃ¹ les prÃ©tentions du demandeur concemaient une somme complÃ©mentaire de 20 000 DM . Pour la panie du pourvoi rejetÃ©e . c'est-Ã -dire pour un montant de 31 000 DM, l'arrÃ©t rendu par la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale dejustice Ã©tait dÃ©finitif . Le 2janvier 1981, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale rejeta le pourvoi constitutionnel formÃ© par le requÃ©rant, estimant qu'il Ã©tait en partie irrecevable et que, pour le reste, il n'avait pas suffisamment de chance d'aboutir . Par arrÃªt du 12 janvier 1981, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice annula l'arrÃªt de la cour d'appel de Coblence pour autant qu'il concernait des prÃ©tentions chiffrÃ©es Ã 129 000 DM et renvoya l'affaire devant cette cour pour ce montant . Le 23 mai 1981, le requÃ©rant porta ses prÃ©tentions toujours en instance Ã 10 666 944 DM . ............... Enfin, le 25 mars 1983 . les parties sont parvenues, devant la cour d'appel d e Coblence, Ã un rÃ¨glement transactionnel dont les termes Ã©taient les suivants : Â« RÃ¨g(ement . : 1 . En rÃ¨glement de toutes les prÃ©tentions du requÃ©rant nÃ©es des faits sur lesquels se fondent son action et les moyens invoquÃ©s- le dÃ©fendeur verse au plaignant la somme de 2 .4 millions de DM (2 400 000 DM) . Cet e somme se dÃ©compose ainsi, en fonction des points litgieux :
(liste des diffÃ©rents ntontants concernant la partie de la demande du requÃ©rant renvoyÃ©e par la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice Ã la cour d'appel de Coblence) . Il . Un intÃ©rÃ©t de 9,5 `9o Ã compter du 1 - janvier 1976 est versÃ© pour ce montant . En rÃ¨glement de toutes les prÃ©tentions d'intÃ©rÃ©t du requÃ©rant pour la pÃ©riode antÃ©rieure au 31 dÃ©cembre 1975, le dÃ©fendeur verse une somme forfaitaire de 302 000 DM . . ..
IV . Le prÃ©sent rÃ¨glement n'affecte en rien les prÃ©tentions Ã©ventuelles du plaignant pouvant dÃ©couler de Ii requÃ©te nÂ° 9320/81 pendante devant la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme de Strasbourg .
V. .. . Un montant de 4 371 000 DM a Ã©tÃ© versÃ© Ã l'avocat du requÃ©rant le 28 mars 1983 par la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne .
GRIEFS ET ARGUMENTATION INITIALE DU REQUÃRAN T I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la procÃ©dure judiciaire dans la mesure oÃ¹ un jugement dÃ©finitif a rejetÃ© sa demande de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour environ 15 760 000 DM, alors qu'il n'a pas eu l'autorisation de former un pourvoi en cassation pour cette partie de ses prÃ©tentions . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'anicle 6, par . I, de la Convention . n . Il allÃ¨gue que c'est contrairement aux dispositions lÃ©gales en vigueur que sa demande en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©e du tribunal rÃ©gional de Bonn Ã celui de Coblence qui . selon lui, n'Ã©tait pas compÃ©tent en l'espÃ¨ce . b . Le requÃ©rant se plaint notamment de n'avoir pas bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable dans la procÃ©dure devant le tribunal rÃ©gional et la cour d'appel de Coblence . Ces juridictions auraient mal interprÃ©tÃ© des contrats conclus entre la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et lui-mÃ©me de 1967 Ã 1972 et refusÃ© d'entendre des tÃ©moins et d'examiner des piÃ¨ces . Or, les preuves qu'il proposait et que les tribunaux ont refusÃ©es auraient Ã©tÃ© dÃ©terminantes pour la conviction des juges . Ceci rÃ©sulte de ce qu'il n'a Ã©tÃ© admis Ã former son pourvoi en cassation que dans la mesure oÃ¹ la cour d'appel avait ordonnÃ© l'audition de tÃ©moins . Si les preuves qu'il proposait avaient Ã©tÃ© pleinement acceptÃ©es par les tribunaux et si la dÃ©cision d'entendre des tÃ©moins avait Ã©tÃ© donnÃ©e plus tbt dans la procÃ©dure et non pas en 1979, alors que certains tÃ©moins Ã©taient dÃ©jÃ dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©s et que d'autres devaient se remÃ©morer des Ã©vÃ©nements survenus en 1962, son affaire aurait suivi un autre cours . c . Le requÃ©rant se plaint au surplus de ce que les tribunaux se sont appuyÃ©s Ã tort sur des preuves que des agents du MinistÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la DÃ©fense ont obtenues de ntaniÃ©re illÃ©gale . Ces fonctionnaires ont agi au mÃ©pris de leurs obligations et Ã©tabli des rapports sur des questions qui Ã©chappaient Ã leur compÃ©tence . Le requÃ©rant estime qu'en fondant leurs dÃ©cisions sur les tÃ©moignages ainsi obtenus, les tribunaux ont enfreint le principe d'Ã©galitÃ© des armes et donc mÃ©connu le droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . Il conteste le fait que, selon la cour d'appel, le comportement des agents en question n'aurait constituÃ© que des manquements mineurs Ã leurs devoirs . d. Le requÃ©rant se plaint ensuite de ce que l'arrÃ©t de la cour d'appel de Coblence, en date du 7 mars 1979, ne contient aucun motif concernant le rejet d'une certaine partie de sa demande, Ã laquelle cependant l'arr@t fait rÃ©fÃ©rence dans la partie concernant les faits . e . Le requÃ©rant voit une autre violation de son droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable dans le fait que la cour d'appel a rejetÃ© son recours sans procÃ©der Ã un examen au fond, dans la mesure oÃ¹ elle ne l'a pas dÃ©clarÃ© recevable .
2 . Le requÃ©rant invoque Ã©galement l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention pour se plaindre de ce que les tribunaux allemands n'ont pas tranchÃ© l'affaire dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . En l'espÃ©ce, en effet, la procÃ©dure a dÃ©butÃ© le 3 avril 1973 avec le dÃ©pÃ´t de la demande en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts devant le tribunal rÃ©gional de Bonn, et s'est terminÃ©e en partie avec la signification, le 23 janvier 1981, de l'arrÃªt rendu le 2 janvier 1981 par la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale . Cette partie de la procÃ©dure s'est donc prolongÃ©e pendant 7 ans, 10 mois et 22 jours . Selon le requÃ©rant, l'affaire n'avait rien de compliquÃ© puisqu'elle portait exclusivement sur des livraisons de pain au Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de fournitures aux armÃ©es . Il eut Ã©tÃ© possible de dÃ©cider rapidement en l'espÃ¨ce si les tribunaux avaient fait diligence pour Ã©tudier les preuves nÃ©cessaires . Cependant, de 1973 Ã 1977, aucune preuve ne fut recueillie et en 1977 et 1979 . elles ne le furent que de maniÃ¨re trÃ¨s insuffisante . Quant Ã la demande d'assistance judiciaire prÃ©sentÃ©e le 7 mars 1973, ce n'est que le 3 octobre 1974 que le tribunal rÃ©gional de Coblence en a dÃ©cidÃ©, soit 18 mois 1 aprÃ¨s le dÃ©pÃ´t de la demande . Par ailleurs, c'est seulement le 17 dÃ©cembre 1974 que la demande fut transmise aux dÃ©fendeurs, soit 20 mois aprÃ¨s l'acte introductif. Le requÃ©rant affirme avoir Ã plusieurs reprises pris des mesures pour accÃ©lÃ©rer la procÃ©dure et s'Ãªtre plaint Ã©galement de sa durÃ©e Ã la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale . Mais tous ses efforts ont Ã©tÃ© vains . Les rÃ©percussions de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure sur le requÃ©rant doivent Ã©tre qualifiÃ©es de tragiques . En effet, si la procÃ©dure avait pris,fin au bout d'un an ou deux, le requÃ©rant aurait pu trouver un nouveau moyen d'existence . En avril 1981, cependant . il Ã©tait Ã¢gÃ© de 65 ans, et n'avait plus aucune possibilitÃ© de pratiquer un mÃ©tier avec succÃ¨s . , 3 . Se plaignant d'une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention, le requÃ©rant renvoie Ã des ingÃ©rences illÃ©gales dans les affaires intÃ©rieures de son entreprise privÃ©e par des agents du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de fournitures aux armÃ©es . A la suite de leur comportement, des rapports inexacts ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablis concemant ses usines de fabrication et des objections sans fondement ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©levÃ©es Ã propos de la qualitÃ© des livraisons de pain . Les consÃ©quences en ont Ã©tÃ© des retards dans le placement des commandes, puis des refus d'accepter les livraisons et . enfin, la fermeture de son entreprise .
De plus, un des fonctionnaires qui fut Ã plusieurs reprises invitÃ© chez le requÃ©rant, a engagÃ© contre lui des poursuites pÃ©nales injustifiÃ©es pour corruption, alors que l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© informÃ© du dÃ©tail des accusations formulÃ©es . Or, le simple fait d'Ã©tre sous le coup de poursuites pÃ©nales lui a causÃ© un prÃ©judice considÃ©rable . Un autre fonctionnaire a portÃ© atteinte Ã la vie privÃ©e et familiale du requÃ©rant en instaurant des rapports adultÃ©rins avec son Ã©pouse, qui furent d'ailleurs sanctionnÃ©s par des mesures disciplinaires prises contre l'intÃ©ressÃ© . 4 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement d'une violation du droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression que lui garantit l'article 10 de la Convention . Il soutient en effet qu'il ne pouvait plus exprimer son opinion sur les faits et gestes des fonctionnaires du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de fournitures aux armÃ©es, puisqu'il dÃ©pendait d'eux sur le plan Ã©conomique . 5 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue aussi une violation de l'anicle 14 de la Convention, estimant que l'ouverture de poursuites pÃ©nales tellement dÃ©nuÃ©es de fondement Ã©taient une discrimination Ã son endroit . La dÃ©tÃ©rioration de ses rapports avec le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de foumitures aux armÃ©es suite aux agissements de ses agents a eu un autre effet discriminatoire . 6 . Le requÃ©rant invoque enfin l'article I du Protocole additionnel . Le refus du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de fournitures aux armÃ©es de lui verser une indemnisation pour les domntages subis en raison de l'attitude de ses fonctionnaires a conduit Ã la faillite de sa sociÃ©tÃ© et constitue une violation du droit au respect de ses biens .
EN DROI T I . Les griefs du requÃ©rant concement la durÃ©e et l'Ã©quitÃ© de la procÃ©dure devant les tribunaux allemands . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement d'une violation du droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, d'une mÃ©connaissance de son droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression, d'un traitement discriminatoire et d'une violation du droit au respect de ses biens . Il a invoquÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard les articles 6, par . I, 8 . 10 et 14 de la Convention, ainsi que l'anicle I du Protocole additionnel . La Commission a examinÃ© en premier lieu l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel le requÃ©rant, ayant obtenu par rÃ¨glement transactionnel du 25 mars 1983, une rÃ©paration suffisante et raisonnable pour les inconvÃ©nients qui ont pu dÃ©couler en l'espÃ¨ce de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure judiciaire, ne peut dÃ¨s lors plus se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation de la Convention Ã cet Ã©gard .
La dÃ©cision Ã prendre sur le point litigieux ci-dessus dÃ©pend essentiellement de la notion de Â« victimeâ¢ au sens de l'article 25, par . 1, et de la ratio legis de l'article 26 . L'article 25, par . I, stipule que : -la Commission peut Ãªtre saisie d'une requÃ¨te adressÃ©e . . . par toute personne physique . . . qui se prÃ©tend victime d'une violation . . . des droits reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention . . . - . L'anicle 26 stipule, quant Ã lui, que Â« La Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . . . Comme le montre la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, c'est en premier lieu aux autoritÃ©s intemes qu'il incombe de remÃ©dier Ã une violation Ã©ventuelle de la Convention . la Commission relÃ¨ve que . suite au rÃ¨glement transactionnel du .Enl'espÃ¨c 25 mars 1983, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u une indemnisation de 2,4 millions DM . En outre . pour ce montant un intÃ©rÃ©t de I 971 000 DM lui a Ã©tÃ© versÃ©, soit 320 000 DM pour la pÃ©riode allantjusqu'au 31 dÃ©cembre 1975, et 9 .5 % d'intÃ©rÃ©ts Ã dater du 1Â°Ijanvier 1976 . La Commission souligne Ã cet Ã©gard qu'en vertu du Code civil allemand- le taux d'intÃ©rÃ©t lÃ©gal ne dÃ©passe gÃ©nÃ©ralement pas 4 % . Certes, le rÃ¨glement ne dit pas expressÃ©ment que cet important versement d'intÃ©rÃ¨ts reprÃ©sentait Ã©galement une indemnisation pour la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure . Cependant, il semble bien que la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure ait Ã©tÃ© effectivement l'un des Ã©lÃ©ments pris en compte pour convenir de l'intÃ©rÃ©t Ã verser . De plus, aprÃ¨s la transaction judiciaire du 25 mars 1983, le requÃ©rant s'est trouvÃ© dans une situation meilleure qu'Ã l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ il diminuait ses prÃ©tentions le 19 septembre 1975, passant de 19 millions de DM environ Ã 160 000 DM- ou lorsque la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice renvoyait son affaire Ã la cour d'appel de Coblence pour un montant de 129 000 DM le 12 janvier 1981 . La Commission remarque en outre que le rÃ¨glement susdit a Ã©tÃ© proposÃ© par le tribunal et acceptÃ© par les parties lors d'une audience fixÃ©e postÃ©rieuremem Ã la dÃ©cision, prise par la Commission le 7 mai 1982, de communiquer la requÃ¨te au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et d'inviter les parties Ã lui soumettre par Ã©crit, leurs observations sur la recevabilitÃ© et le bien-fondÃ© de la requÃªte . Le point de savoir si un requÃ©rant peut ou non se prÃ©tendre victime, au regard de l'anicle 25 de la Convemion, de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e, peut se poser Ã tous les stades de la procÃ©dure selon la Convention (cf . Cour eur . D .H ., affaire Klass- arrÃªt du 6 septembre 1978, par . 3 et suivants) . La rÃ©ponse Ã cette question dÃ©pend pour beaucoup de I'intÃ©rÃ©t juridique que l'on peut reconnaÃ®tre au requÃ©rant Ã faire dÃ©terminer par les organes de la Convention que les droits que lui garantit la Convention ont Ã©tÃ© mÃ©connus . A cet Ã©gard . la Commission doit tenir compte de tout prÃ©judice matÃ©riel ou moral que le requÃ©rant aurait pu subir suite Ã la violation allÃ©guÃ©e .
En l'espÃ¨ce, il est cenain que lorsqu'il a introduit sa requÃªte auprÃ¨s de la Comtnission, le requÃ©rant avait un intÃ©rÃªt juridique Ã faire constater qu'il s'Ã©tait vu refuser les garanties de l'article 6, par . I . de la Convention lorsqu'il cherchait Ã faire dÃ©cider de ses droits de caractÃ¨re civil devant les tribunaux allemands par son action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ¨ts . La Commission estime cependant que le rÃ¨glement transactionnel susdit a eu pour effet pratique de satisfaire dans une grande mesure les revendications formulÃ©es par le requÃ©rant contre le dÃ©fendeur devant les tribunaux allemands . 2 . La Commission reconnaÃ®t qu'il peut y avoir des cas oÃ¹ une partie Ã une procÃ©dure indÃ¹ment retardÃ©e ou entachÃ©e d'inÃ©quitÃ© peut subir des consÃ©quences qui ne sont pas corrigÃ©es par une dÃ©cision finale rendue en sa faveur. De fait, en l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant a soutenu que le rÃ¨glement transactionnel devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© Ã la lumiÃ¨re des circonstances propres Ã l'affaire et a paru indiquer que des difficultÃ©s en matiÃ¨re de preuve et l'idÃ©e de voir se continuer encore longtemps la procÃ©dure l'auraient incitÃ© Ã accepter une somme plus faible que celle qu'il aurait obtenue auwrement . Selon la Commission, cependant, le requÃ©rant n'a pas agi sous la contrainte lorsqu'il a reconcÃ© Ã la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir une indemnisation plus Ã©levÃ©e et unjugement au fond conforme aux garanties de l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention . En outre, rien n'a Ã©tÃ© avancÃ© qui indiquerait que le requÃ©rant a subi, du fait du dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure devant les tribunaux allemands . des inconvÃ©nients auxquels le rÃ¨glement en question n'aurait pas remÃ©diÃ© . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission a examinÃ© l'argumeni selon lequel le requÃ©rant serait victime d'une violation de la Convention dans la mesure oÃ¹ la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de justice a dÃ©finitivement rejetÃ© son action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts le 30 avril 1980 . La Commission relÃ¨ve que les parties sont expressÃ©ment convenues d'exclure du rÃ¨glement transactionnel toutes prÃ©tentions Ã©ventuelles pouvant dÃ©couler de la prÃ©sente requÃªte . D'autre part, le versement prÃ©vu par le rÃ¨glement couvrait la totalitÃ© des prÃ©tentions du requÃ©rant . nÃ©es des faits sur lesquels se fondait son action en rÃ©paration et les moyens qui lui ont permis d'augmenter ses prÃ©tentions . La Commission rappelle en effet que le requÃ©rant a ponÃ© ses prÃ©tentions devant la cour d'appel de Coblence Ã 10 966 644 DM le 13 mai 1981 . Certes, le montant de l'indemnisation Ã verser selon le rÃ¨glement n'Ã©tait calculÃ© que sur la base de la partie de l'affaire renvoyÃ©e devant la cour d'appel de Coblence . La Commission estime cependant que le rÃ¨glement couvrait l'ensemble de l'action en dommages-intÃ©r@ts engagÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, autrement dit la partie rejetÃ©e autant que celle qui avait Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ©e pour nouvelle dÃ©cision . De plus, il semble bien qu e
les conditions favorables de ce rÃ¨glement aient Ã©tÃ© proposÃ©es compte tenu aussi des vices Ã©ventuels de la procÃ©dure et aient visÃ© Ã mettre fin, Ã la satisfaction des deux parties . Ã une procÃ©dure longue et compliquÃ©e . La Commission estime dÃ¨s lors qu'aprÃ¨s le rÃ¨glement du 25 mars 1983, l e requÃ©rant n'a plus, au regard de la Convention, aucun grief qu'il pourrait apaiser en faisant aboutir sa requ@te . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant ne peut plus se prÃ©tendre victime, au sens de l'anicle 25 de la Convention, d'une violation par la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne de l'un des droits reconnus dans la Convention, et que sa requÃªte est dÃ¨s lors manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2 . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
-40-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 15/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 8
 l'article 10
 l'article 25
 l'article 26
 L'article 25
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27