Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 18624/91

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. 6-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 11-21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

B. Point at issue

(para. 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

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

(paras. 13-20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

CONCLUSION

(para. 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

APPENDIX I : PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . .5

APPENDIX II : FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . .8

I.INTRODUCTION

1. The present Report concerns Application No. 18624/91 introduced

on 26 July 1991 against Austria and registered on 2 August 1991.

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

19 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 6 April 1994. The

decisions on admissibility are 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 10 July 1986 the applicant issued proceedings out of the

Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) in his own name and in the name

of four companies, of three of which he was both sole shareholder and

general manager (Geschäftsführer), against thirty-six named

defendants in connection with the failure of the applicant's business

enterprises.

7. On 6 February 1988 the court inspected the file in the criminal

proceedings against the applicant which formed the background to the

case.

8. On 8 February 1988 the court decided to adjourn the proceedings

until the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known. The

applicant did not appeal against that decision.

9. The criminal proceedings are still pending.

10. On 31 May 1988 the court rejected the suit so far as it was

brought by the fourth company, which was unrepresented, even though

the court had requested that a lawyer be appointed.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

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

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

B. Point at issue

12. 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

13. 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 ..."

14. The proceedings in question concern liability for the failure

of the applicant's business enterprises. 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.

15. According to the Government, the period to be considered by the

Commission ends on 8 February 1988, as that was a leading decision

which may be set aside on the request of one of the parties

(prozeßleitende Verfügung). They consider that the period from

10 July 1986 to 8 February 1988 is "reasonable" within the meaning of

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

16. The Commission finds that the proceedings, which began on

10 July 1986 and are still pending, have lasted over nine years to

date. Although they have been adjourned, the claim made by the

applicant has not been determined, and when the criminal proceedings

have ended, the courts will resume consideration of the present case.

17. 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).

18. The Commission considers that the applicant's conduct is not in

itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings. The

Commission notes that since the proceedings were adjourned, over

seven years have elapsed and there is no indication of when the

dispute will be settled. It considers that no convincing explanation

for this delay has been advanced by the respondent Government.

19. 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).

20. 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

21. 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