Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF OCHSENREITER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 16036/90 • ECHR ID: 001-24

Document date: September 13, 1995

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

CASE OF OCHSENREITER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 16036/90 • ECHR ID: 001-24

Document date: September 13, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Ochsenreiter 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 42/1995/548/634. 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 June and

5 September 1995, and composed of the following judges:

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr F. Matscher,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of

Austria lodged with the Court on 9 May 1995 by an Austrian national,

Mr Wolfgang Ochsenreiter, 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 11 January 1995

on the application (no. 16036/90) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Ochsenreiter on 5 January 1990;

Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had access

to a court having full jurisdiction or a fair and public hearing, and

of the length of proceedings in the administrative courts, to which he

was 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 fair and public hearing

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

Whereas on 7 April 1994 the Commission declared admissible

only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in issue;

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

stated that he sought a decision by the Court on account of, inter

alia, the alleged structural deficiencies of the judicial protection

afforded under Austrian administrative law;

Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention 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 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention, and as it determines this issue in the light of

the circumstances of each case; 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

13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant