Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 16942/90

Gert Lagler

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 6 September 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 6-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 9-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

B. Point at issue

(para. 10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(paras. 11-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

CONCLUSION

(para. 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 16942/90 introduced

on 19 July 1990 against Austria and registered on 27 July 1990.

The applicant is a Austrian national born in 1949 and resident

in Vienna.

The respondent Government, Austria, are represented by their

Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department

at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

2. The application was communicated to the Government on

13 February 1992. Following an exchange of written observations, the

complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention) was declared admissible on 13 April 1994. The

decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.

3. Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly

settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after

deliberating, adopted this Report on 6 September 1995 in accordance

with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, the following members

being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

4. In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether

the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Austria.

5. The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31

para. 2 of the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

6. On 20 December 1984 the applicant issued a writ out of the

Vienna Regional Court against his former parents-in-law in connection

with disputes arising out of the financing of a dwelling house. A

witness was heard on 26 November 1985 and the proceedings were

adjourned until 25 February 1986. On that date, separate proceedings

between the parties were joined to the present proceedings. Further

witnesses were heard on 6 and 9 June 1986. On 16 October 1986 the

applicant was heard and on 27 February 1987 the Court decided to

examine the file relating to criminal proceedings pending against the

applicant. Further details of the criminal proceedings may be found

in the Commission's decision on the admissibility of Application

No. 16906/90 (Dec. 8.5.95, pending before the First Chamber). The

proceedings were adjourned.

7. On 6 September 1988 the Court decided that it did not need to

await the outcome of the criminal proceedings before taking a

decision in the case. On 31 March 1989 the applicant's former wife

and the defendants were heard, and on 11 July 1989 the applicant's

former wife was heard again. A further witness was heard on

30 November 1989. On 28 June 1990, with the agreement of the

parties, the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the

criminal proceedings. The applicant requested the resumption of the

proceedings on 2 February 1991. The request was refused on

20 March 1991, but granted on the applicant's appeal (Rekurs) by the

Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 8 May 1991.

8. On 15 May 1993 the Regional Court a gave partial judgment

against the applicant. He appealed to the Vienna Court of Appeal

which, on 17 November 1993, confirmed the judgment of 15 May. It

appears that the proceedings are still pending.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

9. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

that his case has not been heard within a reasonable time.

B. Point at issue

10. The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings

complained of has exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred

to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

11. The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention provides as follows :

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time

by (a) ... tribunal ..."

12. The proceedings in question concerned an action brought by the

applicant over the financing of a dwelling house. The purpose of

the proceedings is to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil

rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall within the scope

of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

13. These proceedings, which began on 20 December 1984 and which

have not yet been terminated, have already lasted over ten years.

14. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings

must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the

case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of

the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the

authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo

judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).

15. According to the Government, the length of the period in

question is due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's

conduct.

16. The Commission notes that the case concerns an alleged intra-

family debt and cannot be considered as particularly complex. The

applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length

of the proceedings. The Commission notes that the applicant issued

his writ in December 1984, but that the first substantive hearing

took place on 26 November 1985. There was a period between

28 June 1990 and 8 May 1991 when the proceedings were adjourned

pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and then a further

two years elapsed before the partial first instance judgment was

given.

17. The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to

organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can

guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on

disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable

time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A

no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

18. In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having

regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission

considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed

to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

CONCLUSION

19. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

LEXI