Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 28898/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3410

Document date: November 27, 1996

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

HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 28898/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3410

Document date: November 27, 1996

Cited paragraphs only



                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 28898/95

                      by Adolf HOLZINGER

                      against Austria

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY, President

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

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

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 28 June 1995 by

Adolf HOLZINGER against Austria and registered on 9 October 1995 under

file No. 28898/95;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1934.  He lives in

Hallein.  The facts of the application, as submitted by the applicant,

may be summarised as follows.

     On 8 July 1987 the applicant brought proceedings (17 C 1018/87)

in the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht) against a former lawyer

for the sum of AS 11,294.05.  The lawyer objected, and a hearing was

held on 25 January 1988.  The court decided to adjourn the proceedings

until other proceedings (20 SW 2/87) were determined.  Those

proceedings were determined on 15 March 1988, and the applicant

requested the continuation of the proceedings 17 C 1018/87, adding to

the amount claimed.

     From November 1988 the applicant was represented by a lawyer, but

continued to make applications to the court.

     A second hearing took place on 1 December 1989.  The court

adjourned the case pending the outcome of parallel proceedings against

the same defendant.  The applicant made further applications for the

proceedings to be continued, and from 1 January 1994 the applicant

again represented himself.

     On 12 December 1994 a fresh hearing was held, because a new judge

was dealing with the case.  The proceedings were adjourned sine die for

the court to obtain all the files.

     On 16 January 1995 the defendant died.

     The proceedings ended when the applicant, by letter of 29 June

1995, requested their discontinuation on the ground that he would no

longer be able to recover the money in any event.

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant alleges violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

He complains of the length of the proceedings - which lasted some eight

years without even a first instance judgment - and also alleges

unfairness, without giving any details.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention by reason of the length of the proceedings.

     The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent

Government.

2.   The applicant also claims that the proceedings were unfair, and

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

     However, the applicant has failed to make any submissions on the

fairness of the proceedings, and in any event, they never advanced to

a first instance decision, and appear ultimately to have been

terminated on the applicant's request.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's

     complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, and

     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 J. LIDDY

     Secretary                                    President

to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846