Search
document

Document text Analytics

EBERL v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20400/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1819

Document date: April 13, 1994

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

EBERL v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20400/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1819

Document date: April 13, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20400/92

by Johannes EBERL

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber)

sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being

present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

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 15 May 1992

by Johannes Eberl against Austria and registered on 30 July 1992

under file No. 20400/92;

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 12 February 1993 and the observations

in reply submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1993;

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 1968, is an Austrian national and

resident at Fügen in Tyrol.

On 12 October 1987 the applicant instituted proceedings

before the Zell am Ziller District Court (Bezirksgericht) against

his uncle. He claimed primarily that the defendant had to vacate

a cottage which the applicant had inherited from his mother, or,

in the alternative, that the contract of lease between the

applicant's deceased mother and the defendant be declared null

and void and the defendant vacate the cottage concerned.

On 11 April 1988 the Zell am Ziller District Court dismissed

the applicant's action. The District Court considered that the

applicant's mother had validly concluded a contract of lease with

the defendant for a term of thirty years which, in accordance

with S. 1116 a of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches

Gesetzbuch) had not terminated upon his mother's death. The

judgment was served on 28 April 1988.

On 25 May 1988 the applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung)

with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht). The defendant

filed his submissions in reply on 7 September 1988. On 12 October

1988 the files were forwarded to another chamber of the Innsbruck

Regional Court for consultation in connection with a further

civil suit brought by the applicant against his uncle. The files

were returned on 6 July 1989.

On 6 September 1989 the Innsbruck Regional Court dismissed

the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on 8 January

1990. On 5 February 1990 the applicant filed an appeal on points

of law (Revision) with the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster

Gerichtshof). The defendant made submissions on 7 March 1990.

On 12 December 1991 the Supreme Court dismissed the

applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision was served on

2 March 1992.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention about the length of the appeal proceedings before the

Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 15 May 1992 and registered

on 30 July 1992.

On 14 October 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government for observations on the

admissibility and merits.

On 12 February 1993 the Government submitted their

observations. The observations in reply by the applicant were

submitted on 1 March 1993.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention that the appeal proceedings before the

Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court lasted

unreasonably long.

The Government argue that the length of the proceedings was

reasonable. In particular, the facts underlying the proceedings

in question were not simple from a legal point of view. Moreover,

the files were needed for a considerable time in the context of

another set of proceedings.

As regards the relevant period to be considered under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), the Commission notes that the

applicant lodged his action with the Zell am Ziller District

Court on 12 October 1987. His appeal with the Innsbruck Regional

Court dated 25 May 1988. The proceedings ended on 2 March 1992

when the Supreme Court's judgment of 12 December 1991 was served

upon the applicant. The appeal proceedings the applicant

complains of thus lasted about three years, nine months and one

week.

The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the case-

law of the Convention organs and in the light of the

circumstances of the case, which in this instance call for an

overall assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cesarini judgment of 12

October 1992, Series A no. 245-B, p. 17, para. 26).

The Commission notes that the applicant's case related to

the vacation of a cottage. While the first instance proceedings

before the Zell am Ziller District Court terminated within six

months, there were delays in the course of the appeal proceedings

before the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court. These

appeal proceedings lasted more than one year, seven months and

two weeks, and more than two years and three weeks, respectively.

Nevertheless, the Commission considers that these delays do

not appear substantial enough for the total length of the appeal

proceedings to be regarded as excessive.

Consequently, there is no appearance of a violation of the

applicant's right to a hearing within a "reasonable time", as

guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First

Chamber

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant