Search
document

Document text Analytics

KÖGL v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 17770/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1767

Document date: May 13, 1992

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

KÖGL v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 17770/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1767

Document date: May 13, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17770/91

by Maria Barbara KÖGL

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 13 May 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 24 October 1990

by Maria B. KÖGL against Austria and registered on 7 February 1991

under file No. 17770/91;

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, an Austrian citizen born in 1948, resides at

Kufstein in Austria. Before the Commission she is represented by

Mr. W. Beck, a lawyer practising in Innsbruck.

In 1964 the Head of the Tyrol Provincial Government (Landeshaupt-

mann) expropriated real property belonging to the applicant in Kufstein

in order to construct railway facilities. In 1967 this property was

returned to the applicant as the railway facilities were not built.

On 22 January 1971 the applicant's real property was again

expropriated for the same purpose. The Kufstein District Court then

awarded the applicant compensation amounting to 2,650,000 AS.

As in the applicant's view the railway facilities still did not

eventuate, she applied on 23 December 1982 for cancellation of the

expropriation decision of 22 January 1971. On 7 August 1984 the Head

of the Tyrol Provincial Government declared her application

inadmissible.

On 30 August 1984 the applicant appealed against this decision

to the Federal Ministry of Public Economy and Transport (Bundesministe-

rium für öffentliche Wirtschaft und Verkehr).

On 22 February 1985 the Federal Ministry dismissed the appeal.

Against this decision the applicant filed an appeal with the

Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 4 December 1986 the

latter partly upheld the appeal in so far as the Provincial Government

on 7 August 1984 had not decided on the merits of the applicant's

application. The remainder of the appeal was transferred to the

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) for further decision.

On 25 February 1987 the Administrative Court dismissed the

remainder of the appeal.

Following the decision of the Constitutional Court proceedings

were resumed before the Federal Ministry which gave a new decision on

15 November 1988.

The applicant filed a further appeal which the Administrative

Court upheld on 18 October 1989 and referred the case back to the

Federal Ministry. The applicant's lawyer received this decision on

15 November 1989.

The Federal Ministry gave its further decision on 10 July 1990

in which it dismissed the applicant's claims and confirmed the

expropriation. The applicant did not file a further appeal against

this decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

of the length of these proceedings, lasting 26 years. She states that

the case was not complex and that she did not contribute to the length.

THE LAW

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

Convention of the length of the proceedings.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention states, in so far

as relevant:

"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."

According to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the

Commission may only deal with a matter within a period of six months

from the date on which the final decision was taken.

The applicant's complaint concerns the issue whether the

proceedings were conducted within a reasonable time before an

independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

In the Commission's opinion, the period to be considered under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the present case

extends to the date of the last decision by a tribunal within the

meaning of this provision. In particular, the examination of this

period cannot extend to subsequent administrative proceedings, if they

are not again followed by court proceedings.

In the present case the last judicial decision was that of the

Administrative Court of 18 October 1989 in which it upheld the

applicant's appeal. Administrative proceedings were then resumed

before the Federal Ministry which gave its decision on 10 July 1990.

The applicant did not appeal against this decision to a court.

It follows that the decision of the Administrative Court of

18 October 1989 was the final decision regarding the subject of the

applicant's complaint for the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention. This decision was received by the applicant's lawyer on

15 November 1989. However, the application was submitted not to the

Commission until 24 October 1990, that is more than six months after

the date of this decision.

Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or

suspended the running of that period.

It follows that the application has been introduced out of time

and must be rejected under Article 26 in conjunction with Article 27

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

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (E. BUSUTTIL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant