Search
document

Document text Analytics

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18624/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1806

Document date: April 6, 1994

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

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18624/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1806

Document date: April 6, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18624/91

by Gert LAGLER

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber)

sitting in private on 6 April 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. 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 26 July

1991 by Gert Lagler against Austria and registered on 2

August 1991 under file No. 18624/91;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of

the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to :

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government

on 25 August 1992 and the observations in reply

submitted by the applicant on 22 November 1992;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1949. He

lives in Vienna.

On 10 July 1986 the applicant issued proceedings out of

the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) in his own name and

in the name of four companies, of three of which he was both

sole shareholder and general manager (Geschäftsführer),

against thirty-six named defendants in connection with the

failure of the applicant's business enterprises. On 6

February 1988 the court inspected the file in the criminal

proceedings against the applicant which formed the background

to the case. On 8 February 1988 the court decided to adjourn

the proceedings until the outcome of the criminal proceedings

was known. The applicant did not appeal against that

decision. The criminal proceedings are still pending.

On 31 May 1988 the court rejected the suit so far as it

was brought by an unrepresented company, even though the

court had requested that a lawyer be appointed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings.

He also initially alleged that the proceedings were unfair,

again invoking Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 26 July 1991 and

registered on 2 August 1991.

On 19 February 1992 the Commission examined the question

of admissibility of the application and decided to bring to

the notice of the respondent Government and to request

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

question concerning the length of proceedings involving the

applicant.

On the same date the Commission also decided to declare

the remainder of the application inadmissible.

After an extension of the time-limit, the Government

submitted their observations on 25 August 1992 and the

applicant submitted his observations in reply, after an

extension of the time-limit, on 22 November 1992. On 12

October 1992 the Government submitted a translation of their

observations.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention by virtue of the length of the

proceedings. In his observations in reply to the

observations of the respondent Government, the applicant

contends that his application is brought in his own name and

in that of four limited companies. The Commission notes,

however, that the application form submitted by the applicant

on 2 August 1991 is completed by him in his personal

capacity, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings he

brought were in several capacities. The Commission finds

that the present application relates solely to the applicant

in his personal capacity.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides,

so far as relevant, as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and

public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

..."

The proceedings began on 10 July 1986 and are still

pending.

According to the applicant, the length of the

proceedings is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. The

Government consider that the applicant has failed to exhaust

domestic remedies in that he did not appeal the decision of

the Vienna Regional Court of 8 February 1988. The applicant

states that his lawyer advised him not to appeal that

decision because the reasons seemed conclusive, but also

advised him to discuss the matter with the judge. The

applicant states that the judge informed the applicant that

there was no point in making an appeal.

The Commission finds that it has not been established

that an appeal against the decision of 8 February 1988 would

have enabled the applicant to put his Convention complaints

to the domestic authorities, or that it would have

contributed to a significant reduction in the length of the

proceedings, as investigations being undertaken by the

criminal court would, at least in part, then have been

duplicated by the civil court. Accordingly, the Commission

finds that the application cannot be declared inadmissible

for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

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 as to the merits.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application,

concerning the length of the proceedings, 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