Search
document

Document text Analytics

R. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 17595/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1335

Document date: July 1, 1992

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

R. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 17595/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1335

Document date: July 1, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17595/90

by J.R.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:

MM. E. BUSUTTIL, Acting President of the First Chamber

F. ERMACORA

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. M. de SALVIA, 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 10 April 1990 by

J.R. against Austria and registered on under file No. 17595/90;

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 applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1921. He lives in

Mehrnbach in Upper Austria.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and apparent

from the documents submitted by him, may be summarised as follows.

From 1963 until 1984 the applicant and his former wife were

involved in several disputes concerning their neighbours and various

dealings with credit institutions which were intended to resolve

financial problems. In March 1984 the applicant's marriage was

dissolved; in May 1984 the applicant's former wife requested division

of certain matrimonial property. After proceedings before the Ried

District Court (Bezirksgericht, 9 November 1984) and the Ried Regional

Court (Kreisgericht, 29 January and 7 May 1985), the Supreme Court

(Oberster Gerichtshof) on 13 June 1985 quashed the decision of 7 May

1985 and remitted the question of an interim injunction (decision of

9 November 1984) to the Ried Regional Court.

On 13 May 1986 the Ried Regional Court rejected a challenge by

the applicant to the presiding judge at the Ried District Court.

On 17 February 1987 the Ried Regional Court quashed a decision

of the Ried District Court of 5 September 1986. It remitted the case

to the District Court. The applicant's former wife appealed to the

Supreme Court which, on 19 May 1988, refused the appeal.

On 22 February 1989 the Ried District Court took a decision on

the merits of the case. The applicant's appeal to the Ried Regional

Court was rejected on 9 May 1989. The applicant further appealed to

the Supreme Court which, on 18 January 1990, rejected part and declared

inadmissible the rest of the appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about a judicial conspiracy which

stretches back to 1963 and which aims to ruin him. He also complains

of the length and fairness of the various proceedings in which he has

been involved. The applicant does not refer to any specific provision

of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings for

division of matrimonial property brought by his former wife. 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 or of any criminal charge against him, everyone

is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law. ..."

The Commission notes that the applicant's former wife introduced

the proceedings in May 1984 and that the final decision in the case

appears to be the decision of the Supreme Court of 18 January 1990,

received by the applicant on 2 April 1990.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine whether there has been a violation of this provision

as regards the length of the proceedings without the observations of

both parties.

The Commission therefore adjourns this part of the application.

2. The Commission has also examined the applicant's remaining

complaints as submitted. However, insofar as these matters are within

the Commission's competence and to the extent that the allegations made

have been substantiated, the Commission does not find that a violation

of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention has been

established.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in

accordance with Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO ADJOURN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINT

under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as to the

length of the proceedings brought by the applicant's

former wife for division of matrimonial property and

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (E. BUSUTTIL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant