Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF BASTA v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19740/92 • ECHR ID: 001-89

Document date: August 5, 1997

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

CASE OF BASTA v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 19740/92 • ECHR ID: 001-89

Document date: August 5, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Basta v. Austria (1),

The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1. The case is numbered 30/1997/814/1017. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

________________

Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 25 June 1997, and composed

of the following judges:

Mr C. Russo, Chairman,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr A. Spielmann,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria

lodged with the Court by Mrs Luise Basta, who has dual Austrian and

Hungarian nationality, on 27 February 1997, within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of

the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);

Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a

complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights

("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court

by the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the

other State of which the applicant is also a national or by the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) of the Convention

(art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d);

Having regard to the Commission's report of 15 January 1997 on

the application (no. 19740/92) lodged with the Commission by Mrs Basta

on 5 August 1991;

Whereas the applicant complained (1) of the length of proceedings

in the Austrian civil courts, to which she was a party, and (2) that

she had not had a fair hearing, and alleged a breach of Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which "In the determination

of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair

... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";

Whereas on 26 June 1996 the Commission declared admissible the

complaint relating to the length of the proceedings and declared the

remainder of the application inadmissible;

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of her

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that she sought a decision by the Court holding that there had

been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) and

awarding her just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50);

Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1. Finds that

(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation

or application of the Convention, as the Court has already

established case-law on the "reasonable time" requirement in

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), while

consideration of the other complaint lies outside the Court's

jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared it inadmissible; and

(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration

by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been

a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction,

having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;

2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

considered by the Court.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Carlo RUSSO

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant