Search
document

Document text Analytics

KOVAR v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20114/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1909

Document date: September 2, 1994

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

KOVAR v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20114/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1909

Document date: September 2, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20114/92

by Alexander KOVAR

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 September 1994, the following members being present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

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 25 May 1992 by

Alexander KOVAR against Austria and registered on 12 June 1992 under

file No. 20114/92;

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 17 February 1994 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 29 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, born in 1952, is an Austrian national. Before the

Commission he is represented by Mr. K. Bernhauser, a lawyer practising

in Vienna.

On 14 May 1990 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht

für Strafsachen) received a criminal information (Strafanzeige) from

the Lower Austrian Security Office (Sicherheitsbüro) stating that on

27 March 1990 S., a businessman, had been beaten up in his office by

persons unknown who demanded payment of US $ 78,000. S. had suspected

the applicant, who was his competitor and business partner, to be

behind this incident.

On 1 August 1990 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) requested the Vienna Regional Court

(Landesgericht) to open preliminary investigations against the

applicant on the suspicion of having committed inter alia attempted

blackmail (versuchte Erpressung). By letter dated 3 August 1990 the

applicant informed the Court that he had appointed Mr. Bernhauser as

his counsel.

On 6 September 1990 the applicant was questioned as suspect by

the Investigating Judge at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. On

28 September 1990 the Investigating Judge questioned S. as a witness.

On 15 and 22 October 1990, additional charges (Nachtragsanzeige)

were brought before the Prosecutor's Office, saying that S. had again

been threatened by telephone on October 3, 8, 14 and 16, 1990

respectively, and been told to effect payment.

On 31 January 1991 the Prosecutor's Office requested the Regional

Court to include the additional charges in the pending preliminary

investigations.

On 26 June 1992 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, upon the

Public Prosecutor's request of 23 June 1992, discontinued the

proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the Prosecutor did

not see any further reason to pursue these proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He submits

in particular that there were no reasons to justify the delay between

September 1990 and June 1992, when the proceedings were finally

discontinued.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 25 May 1992 and registered on

12 June 1992.

On 1 December 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government for observations on the

admissibility and merits.

On 17 February the Government submitted their observations. The

observations in reply by the applicant were submitted on 29 March 1994.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) 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 consider that the proceedings lasted from

1 August 1990 until 26 June 1992. Referring to the case-law of the

Convention organs, they argue that the case was complex, as there was

little evidence to show in what direction inquiries should be

conducted. Moreover, they submit that the Public Prosecutor waited

before taking his final decision as he could reasonably assume that

further attempts to blackmail the victim might occur. The Government,

therefore, maintain that the overall duration of the proceedings of

less than two years cannot be considered as being unreasonable.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs 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 by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE

without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant