هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 01:33 PM
X. v. THE GERMANY - 2694/65 [1967] ECHR 28 (30 May 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1916 at Dortmund andresiding at Dortmund.From his statements and from documents submitted by him it appears thathe was the recipient of a pension (Rente) granted by the Ruhr Miners'Union (Ruhrknappschaft) on account of his incapacity to undertake anyform of gainful occupation (Erwerbsunfähigkeit) owing to a heart attackwhich he had suffered in 1959.By letter of ... 1959, from the Union he was informed that this pensionwould be withdrawn as from ... 1961, and that henceforth he would onlyreceive a pension on account of his incapacity to exercise hisprofession as a miner (Berufsunfähigkeit). The Union reached thisdecision after medical examinations of the Applicant had shown that hehad sufficiently recovered from his heart attack to perform light work.The Applicant, who is of the opinion that he is still incapable ofperforming any work, lodged an objection (Widerspruch) against thisdecision with the Ruhr Miners' Union of Bochum. This was rejected on... 1961.The Applicant then instituted legal proceedings before the Social Court(Sozialgericht) at Dortmund to obtain a judicial decision regarding thewithdrawal of his pension. The court procured another medical opinionon the basis of which it came to the conclusion that he was capable ofperforming light work. On ... 1963, the Social Court rejected hisclaim. The Applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung) against this decisionwith the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht). This Courtrequested further medical examinations of the Applicant's state ofhealth, one of which certified his incapacity to perform any kind ofwork for fear of a relapse. Still, the Social Court of Appeal dismissedthe appeal on ... 1964, as being ill-founded, relying on two othermedical opinions which stated that the Applicant was well capable ofperforming light work. In its decision the court considered the abovemedical opinion which supported the Applicant's claim.The Applicant then lodged a further appeal (Revision) with the FederalSocial Court (Bundessozialgericht) and, at the same time, applied tothe Court for free legal aid (Armenrechtsgesuch). By decision of ...1965, the Federal Social Court rejected his application for free legalaid. It dismissed the appeal on ... 1965.In his letter of ... 1967, to the Commission the Applicant states that,in the meanwhile, he has suffered a new heart attack. Consequently, on... 1966, the Ruhr Miners' Union again granted a pension on account ofhis incapacity to undertake any form of gainful occupation(Erwerbsunfähigkeit) as from ... 1966.The Applicant complains:(1) that the pension on account of his incapacity to undertake any formof gainful occupation was unlawfully withdrawn from him in the periodfrom ... 1961 to ... 1966;(2) that the courts did not sufficiently take into account the medicalopinion certifying his incapacity to perform any kind of work;(3) that the Federal Social Court refused his request for free legalaid.Without referring to any specific Articles he alleges generally aviolation of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint concerning thereduction of his pension during the period from ... 1961 to ... 1966,and the court proceedings concerned, an examination of the case as ithas been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does notdisclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms setforth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by theApplicant; whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of,the Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observanceof the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention;Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an applicationalleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domesticcourts, except where the Commission considers that such errors mighthave involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedomslimitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, theCommission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium -Yearbook III, page 233) and 1140/61 (X v. Austria - Collection ofDecisions, Volume 8, page 57); and whereas there is no appearance ofa violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows thatthis part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within themeaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas the Applicant complains that he was refused free legal aid inorder to pursue his case before the Federal Social Court; whereas, inexamining this complaint, the Commission has had regard both to Article6, paragraph (1), and to Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c)(Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention;Whereas in respect of Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c)(Art. 6-3-c), it is to be observed that the Convention, under the termsof Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms setforth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas under Article 25,paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of theserights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of anApplication presented by a person, non-governmental organisation orgroup of individuals;Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of theCommission ratione materiae; whereas it is true that, under Article 6,paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the Convention,everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right, subject tocertain conditions, to be granted free legal assistance; whereas,however, as the Commission has frequently stated, no right to freelegal aid in civil cases is as such included among the rights andfreedoms guaranteed by the Convention;Whereas it follows that the Application, in so far as it relates toArticle 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), isincompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2);Whereas the Commission has also had regard to the general provisionsof Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention; whereas itresults from this provision that, in the determination of his civilrights, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing;Whereas, however, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides thatthe Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of sixmonths from the date on which the final decision was taken"; andwhereas the decision of the Federal Social Court, which was the finaldecision of the Federal Social Court, which was the final decisionregarding his application for free legal aid was given on 1st March,1965; whereas the present Application was not submitted to theCommission until 29th October, 1965, that is more than six months afterthe date of this decision;Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose theexistence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted orsuspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this partof the Application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27,paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention).Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1916 at Dortmund andresiding at Dortmund.From his statements and from documents submitted by him it appears thathe was the recipient of a pension (Rente) granted by the Ruhr Miners'Union (Ruhrknappschaft) on account of his incapacity to undertake anyform of gainful occupation (Erwerbsunfähigkeit) owing to a heart attackwhich he had suffered in 1959.By letter of ... 1959, from the Union he was informed that this pensionwould be withdrawn as from ... 1961, and that henceforth he would onlyreceive a pension on account of his incapacity to exercise hisprofession as a miner (Berufsunfähigkeit). The Union reached thisdecision after medical examinations of the Applicant had shown that hehad sufficiently recovered from his heart attack to perform light work.The Applicant, who is of the opinion that he is still incapable ofperforming any work, lodged an objection (Widerspruch) against thisdecision with the Ruhr Miners' Union of Bochum. This was rejected on... 1961.The Applicant then instituted legal proceedings before the Social Court(Sozialgericht) at Dortmund to obtain a judicial decision regarding thewithdrawal of his pension. The court procured another medical opinionon the basis of which it came to the conclusion that he was capable ofperforming light work. On ... 1963, the Social Court rejected hisclaim. The Applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung) against this decisionwith the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht). This Courtrequested further medical examinations of the Applicant's state ofhealth, one of which certified his incapacity to perform any kind ofwork for fear of a relapse. Still, the Social Court of Appeal dismissedthe appeal on ... 1964, as being ill-founded, relying on two othermedical opinions which stated that the Applicant was well capable ofperforming light work. In its decision the court considered the abovemedical opinion which supported the Applicant's claim.The Applicant then lodged a further appeal (Revision) with the FederalSocial Court (Bundessozialgericht) and, at the same time, applied tothe Court for free legal aid (Armenrechtsgesuch). By decision of ...1965, the Federal Social Court rejected his application for free legalaid. It dismissed the appeal on ... 1965.In his letter of ... 1967, to the Commission the Applicant states that,in the meanwhile, he has suffered a new heart attack. Consequently, on... 1966, the Ruhr Miners' Union again granted a pension on account ofhis incapacity to undertake any form of gainful occupation(Erwerbsunfähigkeit) as from ... 1966.The Applicant complains:(1) that the pension on account of his incapacity to undertake any formof gainful occupation was unlawfully withdrawn from him in the periodfrom ... 1961 to ... 1966;(2) that the courts did not sufficiently take into account the medicalopinion certifying his incapacity to perform any kind of work;(3) that the Federal Social Court refused his request for free legalaid.Without referring to any specific Articles he alleges generally aviolation of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint concerning thereduction of his pension during the period from ... 1961 to ... 1966,and the court proceedings concerned, an examination of the case as ithas been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does notdisclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms setforth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by theApplicant; whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of,the Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observanceof the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention;Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an applicationalleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domesticcourts, except where the Commission considers that such errors mighthave involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedomslimitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, theCommission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium -Yearbook III, page 233) and 1140/61 (X v. Austria - Collection ofDecisions, Volume 8, page 57); and whereas there is no appearance ofa violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows thatthis part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within themeaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas the Applicant complains that he was refused free legal aid inorder to pursue his case before the Federal Social Court; whereas, inexamining this complaint, the Commission has had regard both to Article6, paragraph (1), and to Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c)(Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention;Whereas in respect of Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c)(Art. 6-3-c), it is to be observed that the Convention, under the termsof Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms setforth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas under Article 25,paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of theserights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of anApplication presented by a person, non-governmental organisation orgroup of individuals;Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of theCommission ratione materiae; whereas it is true that, under Article 6,paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the Convention,everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right, subject tocertain conditions, to be granted free legal assistance; whereas,however, as the Commission has frequently stated, no right to freelegal aid in civil cases is as such included among the rights andfreedoms guaranteed by the Convention;Whereas it follows that the Application, in so far as it relates toArticle 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), isincompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2);Whereas the Commission has also had regard to the general provisionsof Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention; whereas itresults from this provision that, in the determination of his civilrights, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing;Whereas, however, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides thatthe Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of sixmonths from the date on which the final decision was taken"; andwhereas the decision of the Federal Social Court, which was the finaldecision of the Federal Social Court, which was the final decisionregarding his application for free legal aid was given on 1st March,1965; whereas the present Application was not submitted to theCommission until 29th October, 1965, that is more than six months afterthe date of this decision;Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose theexistence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted orsuspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this partof the Application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27,paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention).Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.