(TRANSLAT1ON) Summary of the facts 0,7 8 December 1978, 'he applicant, who had been dismis,sed by the company for rvhich he tvor.tCed, made a claim before the Paris Im9ustrial Tribunal, seeking payrner.,t of 170,000 franes in damage.s for wrongful breach of contract. In October 1979, the applica .at also asksd the Industrial Tribunal for payme.ni of 85,000 franc.s in cwnoensation for a restrictive covenant. In a decision of 24 May 1983, notified to the applicant or 14 October 1983, the lndustrial Tribunal set the applicant's enim in his employer's ltquidation at 85, 000 fianes in compensation for the restrictive covenant, with ittterest at the statutory rate. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims. 77ie company receiver informed the applicant on 10 March 1984 that he had no chance of recovering his debt. THE LAW 'Phe applicant claitns fhat Article 6 para . l of tine Convention has been violated because proceedings which he instituted on 8 December 1978 before the cotnmercial section of the F'aris Industrial Tribunal ("conseil de prud'hommes") lasted until 24 May 1983, the date on which the tribunal delicered its decision, i .e. a total of four veats and five months . The decision, of which he was notified on 14 October 1983.. ac!atowledged that a clause in his contract of employment with his e .mployer, the com'nany L ., was valid and set his claim in the company's liquidation at 85,000 francs in compensation in respec.t of the clause, a restrictive covenant, with interest nt the statutory rate . He maintains that the slowness of the praoeedings caused him undoubted pecuniary loss since he was unable to recover his debt from L ., which ~nad in the meantirne (on 31 October 1980) gone into liquidatio n Anicle 6 para. 1 of the Convention provides inter alia that, in the determination of ks civil rights and obligations, eventone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time by a tribunal . There is one point on which there is no disagreement between the parties, and which tlte Commission coasiders established : the p_rsonal or patrimonial rights which the applicant was asserting before the Industrial Tribunal were of a private nature and were therefore "civil rights" withir, the meaning of the above-mentioried Article . The Commission does not, however, have to establish whether the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a viohttion o1' this provision sinc e 229 Article 26 in fine of the Convention provides that the Commission may deal with cases only "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken". In the present case the decision which terminated the proceedings before the Paris Industrial Tribunal, upholding the applicant's case, was delivered on 23 May 1983 . He was notified of it on 14 October 1983 . It is true that the applicant was only informed that the judgment could not be enforced when he received a letter dated 10 March 1984 setting out the pecuniary damage. It is not, however, the damage sustained by the applicant as a result of his employer's insolvency which is the subject of his application, but a claim that Article 6 para. I of the Convention was violated because of the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings . The Commission considers that the date to be taken into consideration for the calculation of the six month period, within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention, is the date on which the applicant was notified of the Industrial Tribunal's judgment, i .e. 14 October 1983. The proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, which concemed patrimonial rights, resulted in a decision which directly affected the applicant's civil rights and obligations, unlike the subsequent proceedings, which were merely enforcement proceedings which only had indirect or fortuitous consequences. The period after 14 October 1983 is therefore not covered by Article 6 para . I of the Convention (cf., in particular, No . 8782/79, Dec. 10.7.81, D .R. 25 p. 243) . The Commission recalls in this connection that the mle in Article 26 of the Convention, to the effect that an application may be lodged only within six months of the date of the final decision serves an important purpose in the supervision by the Convention organs of the actions of State authorities, since the rule constitutes a factor of legal certainty. The principle requires that both individuals and the various State bodies should know as from what date such supervision is no longer possible because of the application of the six month rule (cf . No. 9587/81, Dec. 13 .12.82, D. R. 29 p. 228). As the application was submitted to the Commission on 16 June 1984, over six months had elapsed since the applicant had been notified of the Industrial Tribunal's judgment. It follows that the application was introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . 226