Search
document

Document text Analytics

RADOLF v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 25965/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3567

Document date: April 10, 1997

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

RADOLF v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 25965/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3567

Document date: April 10, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25965/94

by Helmut RADOLF

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 18 October 1994

by Helmut RADOLF against Austria and registered on 16 December 1994

under file No. 25965/94;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 19 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by

the applicant on 20 May 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1936, is an Austrian citizen and resident

at Sulz im Wienerwald. He is a mechanic by profession. In the

proceedings before the Commission, he is represented by

Mr. K. Arlamovsky and Mr. M. Brunner, lawyers practising in Vienna.

The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as

follows.

On 5 November 1980 the Tax Office (Finanzamt) for the 12th, 13th,

14th and 23rd District of Vienna, laid information with the Vienna

Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft), charging the applicant

with tax evasion.

On 7 November 1980 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht)

instituted preliminary investigations against the applicant on the

suspicion of tax evasion, and also issued a search warrant and an

arrest warrant. The applicant's premises were searched, and he was

arrested on 20 November 1980. During his detention he was questioned

on the charges against him. He was released on 28 November 1980.

In December 1982 the Regional Court adjourned the investigation

proceedings in order to await the outcome of tax proceedings against

the applicant which were conducted by the Mödling Tax Office. In March

1983 the Mödling Tax Office filed a preliminary report with the Vienna

Regional Court regarding the results of its investigations. It noted

that in order to prepare the final report, it had to await a report of

the Vienna Tax Office, however, appeal proceedings against the various

tax assessments were still pending. The Court inquired about the state

of the report in June 1983, November 1984 and January 1986. In January

1990 the Mödling Tax Office, upon a further query, informed the

Regional Court that no final (rechtskräftig) decisions had been taken.

Inquiries in 1991 were to no avail.

In January 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office requested

that the tax report concerning the applicant be amended. This

amendment was received by the Regional Court in March 1992, and the

report prepared by the Vienna tax authorities in May 1992. The

applicant was questioned on 8 July 1992.

On 7 October 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office drew up

the bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of tax evasion

committed between 1978 and 1979. The applicant's objection (Einspruch)

against the bill of indictment remained unsuccessful.

On 27 April 1993 the Regional Court directed that the trial

should be held on 5 August 1993. Upon the applicant's request, the

hearing was adjourned and the trial scheduled for 4 November 1993.

Upon his further request, it was postponed until 25 November 1993. On

25 November 1993 the Regional Court postponed the trial sine die in

order to take further evidence, as requested by the defence.

On 28 April 1994 the Vienna Regional Court, following a further

hearing, acquitted the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant's remaining complaint under 6 para. 1 of the

Convention relates to the length of the criminal proceedings against

him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 18 October 1994 and registered

on 16 December 1994.

On 29 November 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the

respondent Government. The remainder of the application was declared

inadmissible.

The Government's written observations were submitted, after an

extension of the time-limit, on 19 March 1996. The applicant replied

on 20 April 1996.

THE LAW

The applicant's remaining complaint relates to the length of the

criminal proceedings against him. He invokes 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention, which includes the following provision:

" In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him,

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

time ..."

The Government maintain that the length of the proceedings was

due to the complexity of the case. There were no undue delays and no

periods of inactivity on the part of the Vienna Regional Court.

According to the applicant, the case was not particularly

complex. Moreover, the Republic of Austria is not only responsible for

the conduct of the Vienna Regional Court, but also for delays caused

by the tax authorities.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention institutions on the

question of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the

applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having

regard to all the information in its possession, that a thorough

examination of this complaint is required, both as to the law and as

to the facts.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application, without

prejudging the merits of the case.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant