Search
document

Document text Analytics

PRÖTSCH v. AustriaDISSENTING OPINION OF MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ AND N. BRATZA

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 5, 1995

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

PRÖTSCH v. AustriaDISSENTING OPINION OF MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ AND N. BRATZA

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 5, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ AND N. BRATZA

We are unable to share the view of the majority of the Commission

that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the

present case.

We do not consider it necessary to determine whether the

proceedings here in question lasted six or seven years as the

applicants allege. We note that the period involved was in any event

considerably shorter than the periods with which the Court was

concerned in the Erkner and Hofauer case and the Poiss case, the

shortest of which lasted more than sixteen years.

We further note that the Provincial Land Reform Board examined

the applicants' allegations concerning the damage caused to them by the

provisional property transfer and twice expressed the reasoned opinion

that the applicants' complaints were unfounded in both law and fact.

In this respect, the present case can be distinguished from the

Wieninger case in which the Commission found a violation of Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (Comm. Report of 11 January 1984, No. 12650/87 not

yet published).

In these circumstances there is in our view nothing to indicate

that the provisional property transfer imposed on the applicants an

individual and excessive burden such as to amount to a violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

12.06.1989 Introduction of application

15.09.189 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

02.12.1991 Commission's decision (First Chamber) to

communicate the case to the respondent

Government and to invite the parties to

submit observations on admissibility and

merits

25.05.1992 Government's observations

09.07.1992 Applicant's observations in reply

31.08.1994 Commission's decision to declare

application in part admissible and in part

inadmissible

Examination of the merits

15.09.1994 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

parties. Invitation to parties to submit

further observations on the merits

Government's observations

11.11.1994 Applicant's observations

Commission's consideration of state of

proceedings

Commission's deliberations on the merits,

final vote and consideration of text of

the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant