Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19780509-800077
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 02:26:50+00:00
Document Index: 241358491

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'art. 3', 'arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Irrecevable sous l'angle de l'art. 5; Ne pas donner suite sous l'angle des art. 3, 8 et 14Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8000/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-05-09;8000.77 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8000/7 7 X . v/ SWITZERLAN D
X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 9 May 1978 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 9 mai 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention : A dispute with the Federal Patent Office over the formalities to be complied with in order to acquire a valid patent does not concern civil rights or obligations . However, a dispute over the ownership of a patent concerns civil rights or obligations . Article 6, paragraph 1 does not apply when the existence of a disputed civil right and obligation ts taken into consideration by a court but when this court is not called upon to settle the disputed question .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Ne porte pas sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil un litige avec le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de la propriÃ©tÃ© intellectuelle concernant les formalitÃ©s Ã l'accomplissement desquelles est soumise la validitÃ© d'un brevet d'invention . En revanche, un litige sur la propriÃ©tÃ© du brevet porte sur de tels droits et obligations . L'articte 6, paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas lorsque l'existence d'une contestation sur des droits et obtigations de caractÃ©re civil est prise en considÃ©ration par un tribunal mais que cette contestation n'a pas A Ãªtre tranchÃ©e par lui.
I franpats : voir p . 83)
The applicant is a German national who at the time of introducing his application was residing in Switzerland. In February 1973 the applicant applied to the Swiss Patent Office at Berne to be granted a patent and then transferred his rights to the patent to his wife . A year after the applicant was divorced but he continued to act as a representative of his former wife in the patent proceedings .
The patent was granted and reg/stered in April 1976 . However, as the applicant failed to pay the annual contribution, the patent right expire . The Federal Patent Office advised the applicant that he could restore the rights in patent by making a supplementary payment but the letter did not reach him . In December 1976, the Federal Parent Office ceased to consider him as a representative . The applicant protested that he had paid the annual contribution but the Patent Office continued to consider that the patent had been extinguished. An appeal to the Federal Court was rejected by the Civil Law Chamber on the grounds that the applicant had no locus standi, as the patent rights had been transferred to his ex-wife . In a second application to the Federal Court the applicant claimed compensation for an alleged expropriation of the patent rights . This appeal was rejected by the Adminfsr2tive Law Chamber .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant has (also) complained of the proceedings concerning his patent rights . In this respect, the Commission observes that the proceedings before the Patent Office and the Federal Court concerned two different aspects of the patent rights in question : the question of the ownership of these rights, and the question whether the conditions for the registration of the patent were fulfilled . Only the first aspect concerns the applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning or Article 6 (1) of the Convention, whereas the second is of an essentially administrative character outside the scope of this Article . The Commission must therefore limit its examination to the question whether the authorities' finding that the applicant was no longer the owner of the patent rights in question was arrived at in a procedure violating the principles of Article 6 (1) of the Convention . In this respect, the Commission observes that only a procedure which "determines" civil rights and obligations enjoys the guarantees of the abovementioned provision of the Convention . In the present case, however, neither the Patent Office nor the Civil Law Chamber of the Federal Court was called upon to "determine" the question of the applicant's ownership in the patent rights in question as the main issue of proceedings instituted for that very purpose . Both authorities had to form an opinion on this question only incidentally for the purpose of clarifying the question of the applicant's locus standi in the context of proceedings concerning other matters : the Patent Office had to deal with the question of the payment of the registration fees, and the Federal Court was seized with an action for compensation of an alleged expropriation . The opinion expressed by these authorities on th e
question of the applicant's ownership in the patent rights appears only in the reasoning of their decisions and has no directly binding effect . It was open to the applicant to have this question determined by the competent courts, but he did not chose to do so . In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the above decisions insofar as they incidentally expressed an opinion as to the ownership of the patent rights which the applicant claims to have been his property, cannot be considered as "determining" his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Convention . It follows that any complaint under this A rt icle would be manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinent s Le requÃ©rant est un citoyen allemand qui Ãtait Ã©tabli en Suisse Ã l'Ã©poque de l'introduction de sa requÃªte. En fÃ©vrier 1973 il a dÃ©posÃ© une demande de brevet auprÃ¨s du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de la propriÃ©tÃ© intellectuelle puis cÃ©da ses droits d'inventeur Ã son Ã©pouse . L Ã¢nnÃ©e suivante son divorce fut prononcÃ© mais il continua Ã agir comme mandataire de son ex-Ã©pouse devant le Bumau fÃ©dÃ©ral . Le brevet fut dÃ©livrÃ© et enregistrÃ© en avril 1976. Toutefois, le requÃ©rant ayant omis de payer une annuitÃ©, le brevet expira . Le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral informa le requÃ©rant qu'il pouvait demander la rÃ©intÃ©gration en l'Ã©tat antÃ©rieur mais la lettre ne l'atteignit pas . En dÃ©cembre 1976, le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral cessa de reconnaÃ®tre le requÃ©rant comme mandataire . Le requÃ©rant protesta alors qu'il avaitpayÃ© l'annuitÃ© mais le Bumau fÃ©dÃ©ral persista Ã considÃ©rer le brevet comme ayant expirÃ© . Un recours du requÃ©rant au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©rat fut Ã©cartÃ© par la cour civile au motif que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas qualitÃ© pour agir puisque son ex-Ã©pouse Ã©tait titulaire du brevet. Par un second recours au Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral, le requÃ©rant demanda des dommages-intÃ©rcts pour une prÃ©tendue expropriation du brevet . Ce recours fut rejetÃ© par la chambre de droit adminlst2tif.
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint (Ã©galement) des procÃ©dures relatives Ã son brevet d'invention . Sur ce point, la Commission fait observer que la procÃ©dure du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de la propriÃ©tÃ© intellectuelle et celle du Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral concernaient deux aspects distincts des droits en question : d'une part la question de la propriÃ©tÃ© du brevet, d'autre pan la question de savoir si les conditions d'enregistrement du brevet avaient Ã©tÃ© observÃ©es . Seul le premier aspect concernait des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil du requÃ©rant, au sens de l'article 6, par . 1 de la Convention ; le second aspect, d'ordre essentiellement administratif, Ã©chappe Ã l'application de cet article . La Commission limitera donc son examen au point de savoir si c'est Ã l'issue d'une procÃ©dure non conforme Ã l'anicle 6, par . 1, que les autoritÃ©s ont exprimÃ© l'opinion que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait plus titulaire du brevet . Elle fait observer Ã cet"Ã©gard que les garanties prÃ©vues par les dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es de la Convention ne s'appliquent qu'aux procÃ©dures dans lesquelles il est Â« dÃ©cidÃ© Â» d'une contestation sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil . En l'espÃ©ce, toutefois, ni le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral de la propriÃ©tÃ© intellectuelle ni la cour civile du Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral n'Ã©taient appelÃ©s Ã Â« dÃ©cider n de la propriÃ©tÃ© du brevet en-tant qu'objet du litige . Si ces deux autoritÃ©s ont dÃ» exprimer une opinion Ã ce sujet, ce n'est qu'Ã titre incident, de maniÃ¨re Ã pouvoir Ã©lucider la question de la capacitÃ© du requÃ©rant d'agir dans une procÃ©dure ayant un autre objet : Pour le Bureau FÃ©dÃ©ral, il s'agissait du paiement des annuitÃ©s et pour le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral d'une action en rÃ©paration Ã la suite d'une prÃ©tendue expropriation . L'opinion exprimÃ©e par ces autoritÃ©s sur la question de la propriÃ©tÃ© du brevet n'apparait que dans les considÃ©rants de leurs dÃ©cisions et n'avait aucun effet exÃ©cutoire . Le requÃ©rant demeurait libre de faire trancher cette question par les tribunaux compÃ©tents, mais il n'en a rien fait . Dans ces circonstances, la Commission estime que les dÃ©cisions attaquÃ©es, alors mÃªme qu'elles expriment incidemment une opinion sur la propriÃ©tÃ© du brevet - revendiquÃ©e par le requÃ©rant - ne tranchaient pas une contestation sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil de celui-ci, au sens de l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention . II s'ensuit que tout grief fondÃ© sur cette disposition doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme manifestemem mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention .
- 84 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/05/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page