Search
document

Document text Analytics

HASLHOFER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21611/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2261

Document date: September 6, 1995

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

HASLHOFER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21611/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2261

Document date: September 6, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 21611/93

by Helmut HASLHOFER

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

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 18 December 1992

by Helmut HASLHOFER against Austria and registered on 2 April 1993

under file No. 21611/93;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 3 January 1994 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 24 March 1994;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows.

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

insurance agent by profession. Before the Commission he is represented

by Mr. J. Unterweger, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

On 14 July and 15 July 1986 the General Police Directorate

(Generaldirektion für die öffentliche Sicherheit) questioned the

applicant on the suspicion of having committed grave fraud and

fraudulent conversion. The investigations concerned a series of fraud

cases committed to the disadvantage of the Austrian Bundesländer

Insurance Company, involving initially about one hundred suspects and

an overall damage which amounted to AS 130 million.

On 10 September 1986 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht),

upon the request of the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundes-

polizeidirektion) of 4 September 1986, instituted preliminary

investigations against the applicant. On 17 February 1987 the

applicant was questioned by the Investigating Judge.

On 26 August 1987 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staats-

anwaltschaft) filed the bill of indictment charging the applicant with

having acted as an accessory to fraudulent conversion. The bill of

indictment related to offences committed by altogether 21 accused.

The trial against the accused started before the Vienna Regional

Court on 20 January 1988. It continued on altogether 34 days between

January and June, a last hearing was held in September 1988. The

concept of the trial was to hold the hearings concerning the various

accused individually so that they only had to appear at some days of

the trial.

Hearings relating to the applicant took place on 21 January and

8 February 1988. At the further hearing of 5 May 1988 the Vienna

Public Prosecutor's Office extended the bill of indictment and also

charged the applicant with grave fraud (schwerer Betrug). Several

motions for a further taking of evidence were filed. However, the

Regional Court dismissed these additional requests and closed the

trial. The applicant was convicted of having acted as an accessory to

fraudulent conversion and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

On 31 January 1990 the applicant was served with the written copy

of the judgment. On 14 February 1990 he lodged a plea of nullity

(Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) and an appeal (Berufung) with the Supreme

Court (Oberster Gerichtshof).

On 6 September 1990 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and

referred the case back to the Vienna Regional Court.

On 2 December 1991 proceedings were resumed before the Vienna

Regional Court. On 4 December 1991 the case was referred back to the

Investigating Judge.

On 3 August 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office dropped

the charges against the applicant, and the Regional Court discontinued

the criminal proceedings. The decision was served upon the applicant

on 12 August 1992.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about

the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 18 December 1992 and registered

on 2 April 1993.

On 12 October 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government for observations on the

admissibility and merits.

On 3 January 1994 the Government submitted their observations.

The observations in reply by the applicant were submitted, following

an extension of the time-limit, on 24 March 1994.

THE LAW

The applicant complains about the length of the criminal

proceedings against him.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), so far as relevant, provides that

"in the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone

is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time".

The Government maintain that the relevant period to be considered

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) started on 10 September 1986 when

the Vienna Regional Court opened investigation proceedings against the

applicant, and ended on 3 August 1992, when the proceedings were

discontinued. Moreover, referring to the case-law of the Convention

organs, they argue that the length of the proceedings was mainly due

to the complexity of the case and that no considerable delays were

imputable to the Austrian authorities.

The applicant objects particularly to the Government's

explanation as to the complexity of the case.

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 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