T.H. v. AUSTRIA
Doc ref: 21213/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2643
Document date: January 17, 1996
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21213/93
by T. H.
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 application introduced on 27 August 1992 by
T. H. against Austria and registered under file No. 21213/93;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commissions's partial decision of 18 October 1994;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
1 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 2 May 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian citizen. She is represented before
the Commission by Mr. Erich Proksch, a lawyer practising in Vienna.
The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal
proceedings of contraventions of the legislation on rest times for
drivers. Penal orders were issued on 4 January 1991, 7 January 1991
and 8 January 1991 by the Baden District Authority by which the
applicant was fined totals of AS 38,500.00 (penal orders of 4 January),
AS 15,500.00 (7 January) and AS 2,500 (8 January). Periods of
detention in default of 42 days (4 January), 16 days (7 January) and
72 hours (8 January) were ordered.
The applicant's appeal to the Lower Austrian Regional Government
was rejected on 18 March 1991, although one of the fines was reduced.
On 11 June 1991 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's
constitutional complaint, and on 20 July 1992 the Administrative Court
dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
in that her conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was 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
The Commission took a partial decision in the case on
18 October 1994.
The Government's observations were submitted on 1 February 1995
and the applicant's observations in reply on 2 May 1995.
THE LAW
The applicant alleges 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 APPLICATION 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 - AI Legal Assistant
