Search
document

Document text Analytics

G.M. AND U.B. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21089/92;21443/93;22476/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2642

Document date: January 17, 1996

Inbound citations: 10
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

G.M. AND U.B. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21089/92;21443/93;22476/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2642

Document date: January 17, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Applications Nos. 21089/92, 21443/93 and 22476/93

by G. M. and U. B.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 applications introduced by G. M. and U. B.

against Austria on 9 October 1992, 26 February 1993 and 19 August 1993

and registered under files Nos. 21089/92, 21443/93 and 22476/93;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the Commissions's partial decision of 12 October 1994;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

1 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicants on 23 March 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant is an Austrian citizen, and the second

applicant is a German citizen. They are represented before the

Commission by Ms. Eleonore Berchtold-Ostermann, a lawyer practising in

Vienna.

The applicants were convicted in administrate criminal

proceedings of a series of breaches of working hours' regulations in

the Styrian hospitals of which they were managers (Geschäftsführer).

The hospitals system in Styria had been restructured to resemble

private-law organisms. Penal orders were issued by the Leoben Works

Inspectorate in 1988 and 1989. The proceedings in Application

No. 21089/92 were stayed by the Graz City Council, and the applicants

were convicted and fined by the Styrian Provincial Governor on the

Works Inspectorate's appeal. In Applications Nos. 21443/93 and

22476/93 the applicants were fined by the Works Inspectorate and

themselves appealed. The fines imposed were as follows.

Application No. 21089/92

The first applicant: a total of AS 417,850.00, with 5411/2 days'

detention in default;

The second applicant: a total of AS 425,800, with 5611/2 days'

detention in default.

Application No. 21443/93

Both applicants: a total of AS 131,200 each, with 164 days'

detention in default each.

Application No. 22476/93

Both applicants: a total of AS 115,100 each, with 338 days'

detention in default each.

The Styrian Provincial Governor's decisions on the appeals are

dated 17 December 1989 (Application No. 21089/92), 18 February 1992,

10 August 1992, 17 August 1992, and 20 October 1992 (Application

No. 21443/93) and 16 February 1993, 8 March 1993, and 14 April 1993

(Application No. 22476/93).

On 27 February 1992 (Application No. 21089/92) and on

15 June 1992 (Application No. 21443/93) the Constitutional Court

rejected the applicants' constitutional complaints, and on

30 September 1993, 11 November 1993 (Application No. 21089/92),

25 November 1993 (Application No. 21443/93), 25 November 1993 and

19 January 1994 (Application No. 22476/93) the Administrative Court

dismissed the applicants' administrative complaints.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 of the Convention

in that their convictions in administrative criminal proceedings were

not accompanied by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular

that the Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning

of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

On 11 May 1994 the Commission decided to join the applications.

It took a partial decision in the case on 12 October 1994.

The Government's observations were submitted on 1 February 1995

and the applicants' observations in reply on 23 March 1995.

THE LAW

The applicants allege a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention. The Government consider that the case does not disclose

a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6).

The Commission has had regard to the facts of the present case,

to the parties' observations, and to the case-law of the European Court

of Human Rights. It finds that the case raises questions under the

Convention which cannot at this stage be rejected as being manifestly

ill-founded, and which require to be determined on the merits. No

other ground of inadmissibility has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE, without

prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant