FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 20271/05
by Anton Alfons VAAS
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A.  The circumstances of the case

The applicant, Mr Anton Alfons Vaas, is a German national who was born in 1935 and lives in Nettetal in Germany. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Battenstein, a lawyer practising in Düsseldorf.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
From 1952 until May 1991 the applicant worked as a lorry driver. On 10 May 1991 he was diagnosed as suffering from a back disease (intervertebral disc degeneration) and gave up his profession as a lorry driver.
On 11 February 1992 the applicant filed a request with the Insurance Association for the driving professions (Berufsgenossenschaft für Fahrzeughaltungen) with the aim to have established that his back disease was work-related, thus ensuring him pension benefits.
On 4 January 1996 the Insurance Association found that the applicant’s illness was not work-related. Following enquiries into the applicant’s former working conditions carried out by the association’s technical service, the Insurance Association considered that the strain the applicant had been exposed to during the relevant time of his professional life had not been sufficiently high to cause a work-related disease.
On 23 January 1996 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal.
On 4 September 1996 the Insurance Association, following further internal enquiries, rejected the applicant’s administrative appeal.
On 2 October 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Düsseldorf Social Court (Sozialgericht).
By judgment of 11 February 1998, which was served on the applicant’s counsel on 13 March 1998, the Social Court rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that it had not been established that the applicant’s disease had been work-related.
On 31 March 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Northrhine‑Westphalia Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht).
The Social Court of Appeal commissioned the orthopaedic expert S., who submitted his expert opinion on 20 May 1999, which he supplemented on 23 July 1999, 2 August 2000 and 22 May 2001. According to S., the applicant’s disease had not been caused by his work as a lorry-driver.
In the meantime, the applicant had asked, pursuant to section 109 of the Social Court Act, for a fresh expert opinion to be prepared by the expert A., which was submitted on 20 March 2000 and supplemented on 15 February 2001. Having examined the applicant and having consulted further specialists, A. considered that the applicant’s disease had to be considered as being work-related.
In reply, the defendant submitted an expert statement prepared by its own technical service according to which A.’s conclusions were based on erroneous assumptions.
Subsequently, the Social Court of Appeal commissioned the preparation of fresh expert opinions by the expert on surgery B. and the orthopaedic expert V., who submitted their expert opinions on 19 November 2001 and 12 August 2002, respectively.
On 9 June 2003 B. submitted his final statement.
By judgment of 23 March 2004, which was served on the applicant’s counsel on 12 May 2004, the Social Court of Appeal, following an oral hearing, rejected the applicant’s appeal. Relying mainly on the submissions made by the expert B., which were in line with the conclusions drawn by the experts S. and V., the Court of Appeal considered that it had not been established with sufficient probability that the applicant’s disease had been caused by the exercise of his profession. The Court of Appeal further gave reasons as to why it did not follow the conclusions drawn by the expert A. Considering that the relevant questions had been sufficiently examined by the experts B., S., and V., the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to hear further expert opinion, as requested by the applicant.
On 8 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint against the refusal to grant him leave to appeal with the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht), which was rejected by that court on 7 September 2004. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 15 September 2004.
On 14 October 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
On 19 November 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court (no. 1 BvR 2324/04), sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to admit the applicant’s complaint. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 December 2004.
B.  Relevant domestic law
Section 109 of the Social Court Act provides that the insured person can request that a further expert be heard by the social courts. This request can only be rejected if its admission would delay the proceedings and if the court is convinced that the request was submitted in an attempt to delay the proceedings or that the request was not submitted earlier due to gross negligence.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings, in particular before the Social Court of Appeal.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of his right to a fair hearing. He complained, in particular, about the Social Court of Appeal’s rejection of his request to hear further expert opinion. He further alleged that the social courts had been biased against him.
THE LAW
1. The complaint about the length of the proceedings
The applicant complained that the length of the administrative and social court proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant further complained about a violation of his right to a fair hearing. He complained, in particular, about the Social Court of Appeal’s rejection of his request to hear further expert opinion. He considered that the social courts had been biased against him.
However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President