Search
document

Document text Analytics

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18624/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1254

Document date: February 19, 1992

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

LAGLER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18624/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1254

Document date: February 19, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18624/91

by Gert LAGLER

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

19 February 1992, the following members being present:

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

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

SirBasil HALL

Mr.C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs.J. LIDDY

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

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 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 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 the fourth company, which was unrepresented, 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 alleges

that the proceedings have been unfair, again invoking Article 6 para.

1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

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

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

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

provision without the observations of both parties.

The Commission therefore adjourns its examination of this part

of the application.

2.The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) in respect of the fairness of the proceedings.

The Commission recalls that the question whether criminal

proceedings conform to the standard laid down by Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be decided on the basis of the court

proceedings as a whole, that is, after they have been concluded (cf.

No. 7445/77, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 228). There is no indication in

the present case of any circumstances which could be of such importance

as to be decisive for the assessment of the fairness of the proceedings

even at an earlier stage.

It follows that the applicant has not yet any basis for claiming

to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention. This part of the application is accordingly manifestly

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

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the complaints

relating to the length of proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the

application.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (J. A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant