Search
document

Document text Analytics

P.S. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20366/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1557

Document date: March 31, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

P.S. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20366/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1557

Document date: March 31, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20366/92

by P.S.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:

MM. J. A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C. L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the First 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 13 July 1992 by

P.S. against Austria and registered on 24 July 1992 under file No.

20366/92;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1930. He is a

retired farmer and resides at Weitensfeld. Before the Commission he is

represented by Dr. Herbert Rabitsch, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

In 1990 a dispute arose between the applicant and another farmer

concerning the ownership of an agricultural vehicle. The applicant

eventually instituted proceedings in the Regional Court (Landesgericht)

of Klagenfurt, claiming the return of the vehicle against the payment

of a certain sum of money.

The case was heard in court on 17 December 1990. The parties were

present and had the opportunity to submit what in their opinion was of

relevance to the case. The Court furthermore heard a number of

witnesses and certain documentary evidence was submitted.

Judgment was pronounced on 18 January 1991. On the basis of an

evaluation of the available evidence the Regional Court found against

the applicant who was also ordered to pay the costs. The applicant

appealed against the judgment (Berufung) to the Court of Appeal

(Oberlandesgericht) of Graz maintaining that the first-instance court

had made an incorrect legal evaluation of the case.

On 18 April 1991 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. A

further appeal (ausserordentliche Revision) was rejected by the Supreme

Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 28 November 1991. The applicant was

informed thereof on 21 January 1992.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the domestic courts erred in their

evaluation of the evidence produced as well as in the application of

the law. He maintains that he did not, in these circumstances, get a

fair hearing and invokes Article 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant

complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance

of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its established

case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236;

No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec.

13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

It is true that in this case the applicant complains, under

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, that he did not get a fair

hearing. However, assuming that the further appeal to the Supreme

Court, in the circumstances of the present case, was a remedy within

the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, an examination

by the Commission of the applicant's complaint under Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention, as it has been submitted, does not disclose

any appearance of a violation of this provision.

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 unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant