[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF RITTER-COULAIS v. GERMANY
(Application
no. 32338/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
March 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In
the case of Ritter-Coulais v. Germany,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Karel Jungwiert, President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Mark Villiger, judges,
and Stephen
Phillips, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 32338/07) against the
Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by two French nationals, Mr Hans-Jürgen and
Mrs Monique
Ritter-Coulais (“the applicants”), on 24 July 2007.
- The
German Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of
the
Federal Ministry of Justice.
- On
11 March 2008 the
President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. The Federal Republic of Germany having
accepted the provisional application of the provisions of Protocol 14
governing the power of three-judge committees to decide on cases in
which there is well-established case-law, it was decided to assign
the application to a Committee. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. Background to the case
- The
applicants were born in 1942 and 1943 respectively and live in
Beauvoir-sur-Niort, in France.
- In
March 1995 the applicants were involved in a road traffic accident in
Germany. The driver of the other car also resided in France where he
had registered and insured his car.
2. Proceedings before the Regional Court
- On
20 February 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the driver
of the other car and his insurance company before the Landau Regional
Court. They claimed pecuniary damages amounting to some 23,900 German
marks (DEM) for both applicants as well as damages for pain and
suffering (Schmerzensgeld).
- On
19 May 1998 the court granted them a two-week extension of the
time-limit to make further submissions. On 29 May 1998 and on
two further occasions the applicants extended their claims.
- On
29 June 1998 the case was assigned to a single judge.
- On
17 September 1998 the Regional Court held an oral hearing in which
the parties agreed to adjourn the proceedings until 29 October 1998.
However, the hearing scheduled for 29 October 1998 had to be
postponed to 26 November 1998 because of the judge's holidays.
- On
17 December 1998 the Regional Court commissioned a medical expert
report for both applicants. After examining them on 28 April 1999 the
Regional Court received the expert's report on 22 July 1999.
- On
27 October 1999, having been granted an extension of the
time-limit
by one month, the applicants submitted further comments on the expert
report and requested the court to commission a supplementary report.
- On
2 May 2000 the Regional Court held a further oral hearing.
- On
19 June 2000 it reopened the proceedings and scheduled a further
hearing for 13 July 2000, as the expert had used documents in his
report which had not yet been introduced in the proceedings. It
granted the parties two weeks to make their comments. At the
applicant's request, the Court postponed the hearing to 11 September
2000.
- On
26 October 2000 the Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay the
applicants pecuniary damages amounting to DEM 15,100 for both
applicants and rejected their further claims.
3. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal
- On
28 November 2000 the applicants appealed that judgment before the
Zweibrücken Court of Appeal.
- On
16 January 2001, after having been granted a further extension of one
month, the applicants submitted their statement of grounds.
- On
11 April 2001, after holding a hearing on 14 March 2001, the Court of
Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment. It remitted the case to
the Regional Court and ordered the court to obtain an
accident-related and biomechanical expert report (unfall- und
biomechanische Gutachten) and a neurootologic expert report, and
to apply French law instead of German law as both parties had
stronger links to France than to Germany.
4. Proceedings after the remittal
- On
6 December 2001 the Landau Regional Court informed the parties that
according to the Court of Appeal it had been necessary to commission
an interdisciplinary expert report on the circumstances of the
accident and the injuries caused thereby. Thereafter a neurootologic
expert report would be commissioned. It invited the parties to make
their comments and to make suggestions as to the appointment of
experts by 22 January 2002.
- After
an extension of this time-limit the defendants made their comments on
27 February 2002. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court ordered an
interdisciplinary expert report. On 4 July 2002 it appointed the
experts agreed upon by the parties after the applicants had paid the
court fees and exempted the expert from complying with his obligation
of confidentiality (Schweigepflicht).
- One
of the interdisciplinary experts invited the applicants to present
themselves for medical examinations and suggested appointment dates
for August, September or November. Because of the applicant's illness
they were able to attend only on 14 November 2002. On 9 May 2003
the experts submitted their interdisciplinary report.
- On
13 November 2003 the Regional Court requested the applicants to make
a further advance on the costs for the forthcoming commissioning of a
neurootologic expert report. On 18 December 2003, after the
applicants had paid the advance on 10 December 2003, the Regional
Court commissioned this report. On 12 May 2004 the expert examined
the applicants.
After addressing three reminders to him, the
court received his report on 19 January 2005. On 20
April 2005 the applicants submitted their comments on this report
after having been granted a two-month extension of the time-limit.
- On
20 June 2005 the applicants paid the advance on further expert fees
requested by the court on 11 May 2005 in order to hear the
neurootologic expert. On 28 June 2005 the court ordered
the expert to submit written observations on the defendants'
objections.
On 17 October 2005 the expert's observations reached
the court, which then invited the parties to make their comments by 2
November 2005.
On 26 October 2005 the applicants requested two
further weeks to make their comments, which was granted.
- On
28 November 2005 the Regional Court asked the parties whether they
would prefer the commissioning of a psychological expert report
first, or an expert report on the applicability of French law.
On
19 December 2005 the parties informed the court that they wished to
have the expert on the applicability of French law commissioned
first.
- On
10 February 2006 the court declared that it would be too early to
order an expert report on the applicability of French law, as the
neurootologic expert had to supplement his report because he had not
taken sufficiently into account the findings of a private expert
report which the applicants had already submitted during the
proceedings preceding the remittal.
- On
1 March 2006 the Regional Court ordered the neurootologic expert to
supplement his report. On 19 September 2006 the court reminded him
about the preparation of his report. However, the expert informed the
court that the finalisation of his report would take until the end of
the year because of the time-consuming procurement and assessment of
the relevant literature.
- On
25 October 2006, in order to accelerate the proceedings, the court
invited the parties to agree on the applicability of German law to
the case which, however, the defendants refused.
- On
22 January 2007 the neurootologic expert submitted his supplementary
report. On the applicants' request the time-limit to comment on this
report was extended by one month, to 20 April 2007.
- On
4 May 2007 the court requested the applicants to pay a further
advance on the fees for the preparation of a neuropsychological
expert report and the expert report on French law. On 29 May 2007 the
court appointed the experts. However, on 13 July 2007 the court had
to appoint another neuropsychological expert as the other expert was
ill.
- On
5 September 2007 the report on French law was submitted.
- On
9 November 2007 the neuropsychological expert submitted his report,
after examining the applicants on 14 September 2007.
- On
11 December 2007 the court held an oral hearing in which the parties
agreed to stay the proceedings in view of pending extrajudicial
friendly settlement negotiations between the parties. Moreover, the
court informed the parties that there would be a further report of a
medical expert specialised in French law on compensation for damages.
- On
6 March 2008 the defendants refused to enter into a friendly
settlement and insisted on the commissioning of the above-mentioned
expert report (see paragraph 31 above). Subsequently, the proceedings
were resumed.
- On
23 April 2008 the Regional Court appointed the expert, who submitted
his report in French on 27 January 2009. On 12 June 2009 the
applicants received the German translation of the report. On the
same day the Regional Court fixed the value in dispute at 320,000
euros (EUR).
- The
proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the 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
Government acknowledged that the length of the proceedings was
excessive and that therefore there had been a violation of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 16 February 1998 and
on 12 June 2009 had not yet ended. It had already lasted on that date
eleven years and four months at two levels of jurisdiction including
a remittal.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- It
has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it and considering that the
Government have acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had
been in breach of Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that there
is no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- Further,
the applicants complained that they had not had an effective remedy
at their disposal to complain about the length of the proceedings.
They alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, which
reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
- The
Government did not contest that argument. They submitted that as
there was ongoing consultation between the Federal Government, the
parties concerned and the German Parliament it had not yet been
possible to introduce an effective remedy within the meaning of
Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
- The Court has already held that there is no effective
remedy under German law capable of affording redress for unreasonable
length of civil proceedings (see Sürmeli v. Germany
[GC], no. 75529/01, §§ 103-108, ECHR 2006-VII, and Herbst
v. Germany, no. 20027/02, §§ 65-66,
11 January 2007). It takes note of the Government's submissions
according to which the legislative procedure to introduce a new
remedy in respect of inaction is still under way.
- Accordingly,
the Court considers that the applicants did not have an effective
remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention which
could have expedited the proceedings in the Landau Regional Court or
provided adequate redress for delays that had already occurred.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicants claimed EUR 10,000 each in respect of
non-pecuniary
damage, referring to the amount granted in the case of Sürmeli
(see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, §
145,
ECHR 2006 ...) and waived any claims in respect of
pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the amount of non-pecuniary damages claimed.
- The
Court considers that the applicants must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the
proceedings which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a
violation.
Ruling on an equitable basis, it makes to both
applicants a joint award of
EUR 10,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 486.25 for costs and expenses incurred
before the Court (translation post, photocopies and postage costs).
They submitted documents in support of their claim. Referring to the
case of Sürmeli (see Sürmeli, cited above, §
48), they further claimed a total of EUR 250 for both applicants
as the overall length of the proceedings before the Regional Court
had entailed an additional financial burden for them.
- The
Government acknowledged that costs for translation, photocopies and
postage were incurred, but contested the claim of EUR 250.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable that the sum of 486.25 claimed should be
awarded in full. Furthermore, seeing that in length of proceedings
cases the protracted examination of a case beyond a “reasonable
time” involves an increase in the applicants' costs (see, among
other authorities, Sürmeli, cited above, § 148,
and D.E. v. Germany,
no. 1126/05, §
78, 16 July 2009), it does not find it unreasonable to award both
applicants the sum of EUR 250 claimed under this head.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,
the following amounts:
(i)
EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to
both applicants jointly;
(ii)
EUR 736.25 (seven hundred and thirty-six euros and twenty-five cents)
in respect of costs and expenses to both applicants jointly;
(iii)
any tax that may be chargeable to them on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Philips Karel Jungwiert
Deputy Registrar President
