University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, Norwegian Center for Human Rights

JUR 5130/11 October 2006, Case Brief(Group B)

Case / Deumeland v The Federal Republic of Germany, ECHR,Application No.9384/81
Parties / Applicant: Mr. Klaus Dieter Deumeland, a German national
State Parties: the Federal Republic of Germany
Facts / Mrs. Johanna Deumeland applied for a widow’s supplementary pension, claiming that the death of her husband Gerhard on 25 March 1970 had been the consequence of an industrial accident. As heir to his mother, who died on 8 December 1976, Mr. Deumeland continued the proceedings she had commenced before the social courts against the Land.
After having gone through long-time unsatisfactory proceedings in the available local remedies, Mr. Deumeland submitted his case to the European Commission of Human Rights for claiming that the German social courts had not given the case a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
The state party on its part contended that article 6 para.1 of the convention is not applicable to the present case and the court can not deal with the merit of the case, on the ground non-compatibility with the provision of the convention, or alternatively that the Federal Republic of Germany has not violated article 6(6-1) of the convention.
Procedural Posture / Before Mr. Deumeland submitted his case to the Commission, the case consumed long-time proceedings in the Berlin Social Court, the Berlin Social Court of Appeal, the Federal Social Court and last the Federal Constitutional Court.
Then the case originated in an application (no. 9384/81) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Commission on 15 April 1981 under Article 25. The present case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 October 1984.
Issues / 1.  Is the right at issue a civil right to fall with in the ambit of the convention?
2.  Is article 6 para.1 of the convention violated by the state party concerned?
Rights / The right to fair hearing envisaged under article 6 para.1 of the convention
Holding
& Reasoning / The right in question was a personal, economic and individual right, a factor that brought it close to the civil sphere. In addition, the supplementary pension claimed by the widow of Mr. Deumeland senior and then by his son was an extension of the salary payable under the contact, the civil character of this salary being beyond doubt. This pension shared the same nature as the contract and hence was also invested with a civil character for the purposes of the convention. Finally the German industrial- accident insurance is similar in several respects to insurance under the ordinary law. Having evaluated the relative cogency of the features of public law and private law present in the instant case, the court finds the latter to be predominant. None of these various features of private law is decisive on its own, but taken together and cumulatively they confer on the asserted entitlement the character of a civil right with the meaning of article 6 Para. 1 of the convention, which was thus applicable.
In all the litigation in issue extended over almost eleven years. Though Mr. Deumeland has made his own contribution for the delay, a number of delays are attributable to the competent courts, primarily the Berlin Social court and Social court of appeal.
Rules of Law / 1.  Whether or not a right is to be regarded as civil ... must be determined by reference to the substantive content and effects of the right - and not its legal classification - under the domestic law of the State concerned.
2.  The time that a case takes should be reasonable.
Decision / The Federal Republic of Germany violated Article 6 Para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the convention
Validity / Legal binding.