Search
document

Document text Analytics

BRUCKNER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21442/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2645

Document date: January 17, 1996

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

BRUCKNER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21442/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2645

Document date: January 17, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 21442/93

by Otto BRUCKNER

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 1 February 1993

by Otto BRUCKNER against Austria and registered under file

No. 21442/93;

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

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

applicant on 25 April 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He is represented before

the Commission by Mr. Hansjörg Kaltenbrunner, a lawyer practising in

Linz.

The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal

proceedings of failure to comply with the legislation on periods of

rest at work (see Dec. 18.10.94, D.R. 79-A, p. 47). A penal order was

issued by the Mayor of Linz on 19 July 1990. The applicant was fined

AS 3,000.00, with three days' detention in default.

The applicant's appeal to the Upper Austrian Provincial Governor

was rejected on 30 July 1991.

On 9 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 his 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 21 February 1995

and the applicant's observations in reply on 25 April 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

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant