Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801007-885080
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 19:19:57+00:00
Document Index: 221131752

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', 'art. 25', 'art. 36', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 136", "l'article 26", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8850/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-10-07;8850.80 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8850/80 X . v/SWITZERLAN D X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 7 October 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 7 octobre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article- 26 of the Convention : AppeÃ¢! proceedings in the field of social insurance . The decision to reject a request for retrial is not taken into account in order to determine the starting point for the sis-months' time-limit.
Article 26 de la Convention : ProcÃ©dure de recours en matiÃ¨re d'assurances sociales . La dÃ©cision de rejet d'un pou rvoi en rÃ©vision n'est pas prise en considÃ©ration pour dÃ©terminer le point de dÃ©part du dÃ©lai de six mois .
((rancais : voir p . 234)
Summary of the fectr
The applicant', born with a menta l handicap . has lived in Switzerland as from /962. He previously lived in Federal Republic of Gerntany . Although he had been obliged to pay federal invalidity insurance contributions, he was refused an ordinary invalidity pension on the ground that he had not paid anv contributions for a minimum of one year before he became an invalid (art . 36, para . I of the Invalidity Insurance Act) . This invalidity was assumed to have started on the day of the ent ry into force of the Act e.g . I January 1960 (art. 25. para . / of the Act) . In view of the applicant's financial situation, he was equa!(v refused an estraordinary pension . The Federal Insurance Court rejected the applicant's appeal in summa ry proceedings in August 1977. The applicant then lodged a request for retrial, alleging that the court had neglected essential elements in the file. This request was rejected in August 1978 in the absence of anv new facts . + The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr H .G . Hinderling . a lawyer practising in Basle .
THE LAW The applicant has complained that his claim for an ordinary or extraordinary invalidity pension was rejected and that the proceedings instituted to determine his claim violated Article 6(1) of the Convention . However, even assuming that Article 6(1) applies to the proceedings in question, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision as Article 26 of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter . . . within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken" . According to the Commission's constant jurisprudence the "final decision" within the meaning of Article 26 refers solely to the final decision involved in the exhaustion of all domestic remedies according to the generally recognised rules of international law . In particular, only a remedy which is "effective and sufficient" can be considered for this puroose (see e .g . decisions on the admissibility of applications No . 918/60, Collection of Decisions 7, pp . 108 . 110 and No . 654/59 . Yearbook 4, pp . 277, 283) . The Commission finds that, in the present case, the applicant's petition for a retrial was not an effective remedy under the generally recognised rules of international law . It is true that such petition may, under Article 136, lit . (d) OG, also be based on the allegation that relevant facts contained in the court files were not taken into account in the decision complained of . However, it follows clearly from the Federal Court's decision of . . . August 1978 that the applicant had no valid ground on which to request a retrial under this provision, but in reality alleged errors of law, while such errors could not give rise to a retrial . In these circumstances the decision regarding the petition for a retrial cannot be taken into consideration in determining the date of the final decision for the purpose of applying the six months' time-limit laid down in Article 26, as this petition cannot be considered as an effective remedy with regard to the alleged violations of the Convention . The final decision regarding the applicant's complaints is, accordingly, the decision of the Federal Insurance Court which was given on . . . August 1977 ; whereas the present application was submitted to the Commission on 31 October 1978, that is, more than six months after the date of this decision . Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period . It fol ows that the application has been introduced out of time and mus t be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits HandicapÃ© mental de naissance, le requÃ©rant ? est arrivÃ© en Suisse en 1962, venant d'Allemagne .Bienqu'astreint Ã cotiser Ã l'Assurance-invaliditÃ© fÃ©dÃ©rale, il se vit par la suite refuser une rente ordinaire au motif qu'il n'avait pas cotisÃ© durant au moins un an avant le dÃ©but de son invaliditÃ© (art. 36. par. 1, LAI) laquelle est rÃ©putÃ©e avoir commencÃ© au jour de l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la loi, soit le 1" janvier 1960 (art . 85, par. 1, LAI). En raison de la situation financiÃ¨re du requÃ©rant, une rente extraordinaire lui fut Ã©galement refusÃ©e.
Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral des assurances, statuant sommairement, rejeta un recours du requÃ©rant en aoGt 1977. Le requÃ©rant intmduisit alors une demande en rÃ©vision, en allÃ©guant que le tribunal avait nÃ©gligÃ© des Ã©lÃ©ments importants du dossier. Cette demande fu r rejetÃ©e en aoÃ»t 1978 pour absenc e de faits nouveaux .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint du rejet de ses demandes de rentes d'invaliditÃ© ordinaire et extraordinaire et allÃ¨gue que la procÃ©dure engagÃ©e pour faire statuer sur ses prÃ©tentions n'a pas respectÃ© les exigences de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . â¢ MÃªme Ã supposer que l'article 6, paragraphe 1, soit applicable Ã la procÃ©dure dont il s'agit, la Commission n'est cependant pas appelÃ©e Ã examminer si les faits exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant rÃ©vÃ¨lent l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition . En e ffet, aux termes de l'arficle 26 de la Convention, . la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie que . . . dans le dÃ©lai de six mois, Ã pa rt ir de la date de dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive . . Selon la ju ri sprudence constante de la Commission, il faut entend re par . dÃ©cision inteme dÃ© fi nitive ., au sens de l'a rt icle 26, la dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive rendue selon le cours normal de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours intern es, tel 4u'il est entendu selon les p ri ncipes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . En particulier, seul un recours - e ff icace et suffisant . peut Ãªtre p ris en considÃ©ration Ã cet effet ( voir par exeniple les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des re quÃªtes NÂ° 918/60, Recueil 7 pp . 108, 110, NÂ° 654/59, Annuai re 4, pp . 277, 283) . â¢ Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait n :prÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission pa M- H .G . Hinderling . avocat Ã B31e .
La Commission estime que, dans la prÃ©sente affaire, la demande en rÃ©vision introduite par le requÃ©rant ne constituait pas un recours efficace, au sens des principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . Certes, aux termes de l'article 136, litt . d), de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'organisation judiciaire, une telle demande peut-elle se fonder sur l'allÃ©gation que des faits pertinents figurant au dossier n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© pris en considÃ©ration dans la dÃ©cision attaquÃ©e . Toutefois, il ressort clairement de l'arrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du . . . aofit 1978 que le requÃ©rant n'avait aucun motif de demander la rÃ©vision en application de cette disposition et allÃ©guait en rÃ©alitÃ© des erreurs de droit, qui ne donnent pas ouverture au pourvoi en rÃ©vision . Dans ces conditions, la dÃ©cision relative au pourvoi en rÃ©vision formÃ© par le requÃ©rant ne peut pas Ãªtre retenue pour dÃ©terminer la date dÃ© la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive, quant au dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26, car ce pourvoi ne peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme un recours effectif Ã l'Ã©gard de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention . Quant au grief du requÃ©rant, la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive est ainsi l'arr@t rendu par le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral des assurances le . . . aoÃ»t 1977 . Or, la prÃ©sente requÃ©ste a Ã©tÃ© introduite devant la Commission le 31 octobre 1978, c'est-Ã -dire plus de six mois aprÃ¨s la date de cette dÃ©cision . En outre, l'examen de l'affaire ne permet de discemer aucune circonstance particuliÃ¨re qui ait pu interrompre ou suspendre le cours dudit dÃ©lai . 11 s'ensuit que la requÃªte est tardive et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention .
Par Ces motifs, la Commissio n
- 235 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/10/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page