Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF LAGLER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

Doc ref: 16942/90 • ECHR ID: 001-60

Document date: April 24, 1996

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

CASE OF LAGLER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

Doc ref: 16942/90 • ECHR ID: 001-60

Document date: April 24, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Lagler v. Austria (no. 2) (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 5/1996/624/807. 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 29 March 1996, and composed

of the following judges:

Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Chairman,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr B. Walsh,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria

lodged with the Court on 17 January 1996 by an Austrian national,

Mr Gert Lagler, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32

para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;

Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

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

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

Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention 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 either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission

under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the

Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of 6 September 1995 on

the application (no. 16942/90) lodged with the Commission by Mr Lagler

on 19 July 1990;

Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 October 1995, in accordance

with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in

the Austrian civil courts, to which he is a party, and alleged a breach

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

determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is

entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal

...";

Whereas the applicant requested that his application be

considered in spite of its late submission, in particular because he

did not have the relevant legal knowledge, received the Commission's

report only on 24 October 1995 and was ill during January 1996;

Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1,

art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4

of Rules of Court B,

1. Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the

Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an

application the case must be referred to it within a period of

three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's

report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to

the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a

violation of the Convention;

2. Notes that in this case the Commission's report was transmitted

to the Committee of Ministers on 16 October 1995 and a faxed copy

of the application was received at the registry of the Court on

17 January 1996, that is one day after expiry of the three-month

period;

3. Considers that the explanations put forward do not disclose any

special circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time

or justify its starting to run afresh;

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

considered by the Court.

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

24 April 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Louis-Edmond PETTITI

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant