AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 19369/92

                      by G.S.

                      against Austria

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 8 January 1993, the following members being present:

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

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

           Sir   Basil HALL

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   M. PELLONPÄÄ

                 G.B. REFFI

           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 4 March 1991 by

G.S. against Austria and registered on 17 January 1992 under file No.

19369/92;

      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 they have been submitted by the applicant,

may be summarised as follows.

      The applicant, born in 1928, is an Austrian national and resident

in Graz.

      In December 1974 the applicant was placed under guardianship, and

in September 1975, in the context of criminal proceedings against him,

the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered his detention in a

psychiatric hospital.  Having regard to various expert opinions, the

Court found that the applicant suffered from a dangerous psychosis.

The applicant was released in 1982.  His placement under guardianship

was finally terminated in 1987.

      On 9 December 1985 the applicant applied to the Graz Regional

Court for free legal aid to bring compensation proceedings against one

of the four experts who had certified his mental illness in the context

of the above proceedings.  On 27 January 1988 the Graz Regional Court

refused legal aid.  The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Graz

Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 10 October 1988.

      On 9 June 1987 and 4 January 1988 the applicant filed

applications for legal aid to bring compensation proceedings against

all four experts.  On 12 January 1988 the Graz Regional Court granted

legal aid.  Counsel was appointed for the applicant's representation.

      On 3 January 1990 the applicant instituted official liability

proceedings before the Graz Regional Court claiming compensation for

damages caused by the above psychiatric experts and his guardians.  On

5 February 1990 the Regional Court refused his request for free legal

aid as regards these proceedings.  His appeal was dismissed by the Graz

Court of Appeal on 16 March 1990, the decision was served on 27 March.

      On 2 April 1990 the applicant, represented by the counsel

appointed for him in January 1988, filed a compensation action against

the four experts and three guardians.  As regards the action against

the latter, he personally requested legal aid on 4 April 1990.

      On 25 June 1990 the Graz Regional Court declined local

jurisdiction in respect of the fourth and sixth defendant.

      In July 1990 the first defendant filed written submissions with

the Graz District Court (Bezirksgericht), raising doubts as to the

applicant's capacity to take part in legal proceedings.  In August 1990

the Graz Regional Court suspended the proceedings in order to await the

outcome of guardianship proceedings concerning the applicant instituted

before the Graz District Court.  The guardianship proceedings, which

confirmed the applicant's capacity to take part in legal proceedings,

were terminated on 5 December 1990.  Upon the applicant's request, the

proceedings before the Regional Court were continued in February 1991.

      On 20 February and 10 July 1991 the Graz Court of Appeal, upon

the appeals of the second, third and fourth experts, quashed the

Regional Court's decision of 1988 granting the applicant legal aid.

The Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court had not duly

considered the applicant's financial situation and the prospects of

success of the envisaged action.

      On 30 October 1991 the Graz Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's claim for legal aid on the ground that the envisaged

compensation proceedings did not offer any prospect of success.  The

Regional Court considered that the applicant's alleged claims were

time-barred as he had failed to show that in his case the conditions

for a thirty year period of prescription applied instead of the usual

three year period.  The Court stated that no application for legal aid

had been filed as regards the fifth and seventh defendant.

      On 15 April 1992 the Graz Court of Appeal dismissed the

applicant's appeal.  As regards the refusal of legal aid in view of

proceedings against the first defendant, the Court, referring to the

decisions of 27 January and 10 October 1988, found that the matter was

res judicata.  As regards the three other defendant experts, the Court

of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court's reasoning.  It further

considered that the applicant had failed to show any causal link

between the experts' opinions and the damage allegedly suffered by him,

and to specify these damages.

      In the course of the legal aid proceedings before the Graz

Regional Court and the Graz Court of Appeal, the applicant was

represented by his officially appointed counsel.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant complains about an attempted murder in 1970

allegedly arranged by Austrian authorities.  He also complains about

his placement in a psychiatric hospital in 1975 and the conditions of

detention as well as various events in the course thereof.  He invokes

Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.

2.    Furthermore, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the

Convention about the Austrian court decisions refusing him legal aid

for his compensation proceedings.

3.    Moreover, the applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention about the length of compensation proceedings pending before

the Graz Regional Court.

THE LAW

1.    As regards the applicant's complaints about events and decisions

in 1970 and between 1975 and 1987, respectively, the Commission is not

required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by him disclose

any appearance of a violation of the Convention.  In accordance with

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission finds that these

matters date back more than six months before the date on which the

application was submitted to the Commission.  It follows that this part

of the application must be rejected under Article 26 in conjunction

with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 26+27-3) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant further complains under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the refusal of legal aid for

compensation proceedings relating to his placement under guardianship

and his detention in a psychiatric hospital.

      The applicant's complaints in this respect relate to different

requests for free legal aid.

a.    The Commission notes that the applicant's first request for legal

aid in view of compensation proceedings against one of the experts in

question was finally dismissed by the Graz Court of Appeal on

10 October 1988.  The final decision upon his request for legal aid

dated 3 January 1990 concerning official liability proceedings was

taken by the Graz Court of Appeal on 16 March 1990.  These issues thus

date back more than six months before the date when the applicant

introduced the present application, and, therefore, must be rejected

under Article 26 in conjunction with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 26+27-3).

b.    The applicant further submits that the Austrian courts did not

decide upon his request of 4 April 1990 to grant him legal aid in view

of compensation proceedings against three guardians.  However, the

Commission is not required to decide whether or not these submissions

disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention as the

applicant failed to appeal to the Graz Court of Appeal under S. 91 of

the Court Organisation Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) that a time-

limit be fixed for a decision by the Regional Court.  He has not,

therefore, as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,

exhausted the remedies available under Austrian law. It follows that

this aspect of the application must also be rejected under Article 26

in conjunction with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 26+27-3).

c.    Moreover, the applicant complains about the refusal of legal aid

in view of his compensation proceedings against four psychiatric

experts.

      The Commission recalls that the refusal of legal aid for civil

proceedings which lack prospects of success does not amount to a denial

of access to a court, as guaranteed under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, provided this refusal is not arbitrary

(cf. Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no.

32, pp. 12-16, paras. 22-26; No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95;

No. 9353/81, Dec. 11.5.83, D.R. 33 p. 133).

      In the present case, the Graz Regional Court's decision of

12 January 1988 granting the applicant's request for legal aid against

the four experts was, upon the appeals of some of the defendants,

quashed by the Graz Court of Appeal on 20 February and 10 July 1991.

In subsequent proceedings, his request for legal aid was dismissed by

the Regional Court on 30 October 1991.  The Regional Court considered

that the envisaged compensation proceedings did not offer any prospect

of success on the ground that his alleged claims were time-barred.  The

Graz Court of Appeal, in its decision of 15 April 1992 upon the

applicant's appeal, confirmed this refusal.

      The Commission finds that the Regional Court's decisions of

20 February and 10 July 1991, as confirmed by the Graz Court of Appeal

on 15 April 1992, were based on a careful examination as to the

prospects of success of the applicant's compensation action, which had

been presented by counsel.  In the Commission's opinion, the refusal

of legal aid for these proceedings does not appear arbitrary.

      It follows that this complaint does not disclose any appearance

of a violation of the applicant's right to access to a court under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).  Consequently, this part of the

application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

3.    Moreover, the applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention about the length of compensation

proceedings pending before the Graz Regional Court.

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) provides, inter alia, that, in the

determination of his civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled

to a hearing within a reasonable time.

      The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed

in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with

reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the

conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with

the case.  In this instance, the circumstances call for a global

assessment (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991,

Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30; Salerno judgment of 12 October 1992,

para. 19, to appear in Series A no. 245-D).

      In the present case, the applicant filed his compensation action

on 2 April 1990.  Between August 1990 and February 1991 the proceedings

were suspended in order to await the outcome of guardianship

proceedings concerning the applicant which had been instituted before

the Graz District Court.  Following appeals lodged by some of the

defendants against the grant of legal aid to the applicant, two sets

of proceedings on this matter were pending between February 1991 and

April 1992.

      The Commission, in the circumstances of the present case, finds

that the total length of the proceedings of about two and a half years

has not yet exceeded the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1).

      It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

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

      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)