Search
document

Document text Analytics

JOSEF MÜLLER AG v. SWITZERLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A. WEITZEL

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 14, 1991

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

JOSEF MÜLLER AG v. SWITZERLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A. WEITZEL

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 14, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. A. WEITZEL

I find myself unable to agree with the opinion of the majority

of the Commission that there has not been a violation of Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.

In my opinion, after the decision of the Zurich Administrative

Court on 22 June 1982, the applicant company in fact did not make

contradictory statements to the relevant authority concerned, namely

the Zurich Council of State. Thus, on 26 October 1982 the Council of

State put a question to the applicant company, to which the latter

clearly replied on 24 November 1982, namely that it wanted a marketing

authorisation. The statement of 10 November 1982 was addressed to a

different authority, namely the Federal Court.

Moreover, the right enshrined in Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention expressly envisages the "determination" by the authorities

of the applicant company's "civil" rights. In the present case, the

applicant company, after clearly expressing its wish to the Zurich

Council of State, could not be expected further to urge the Zurich

authorities to pursue its case, since the Zurich Administrative Court

itself, when partly upholding the applicant company's appeal on 22 June

1982, had instructed the authorities as to the further course of the

proceedings.

Consequently, there were good reasons for the Zurich authorities

to expedite and conclude the proceedings. In view of their prolonged

inactivity, the resulting delay must be attributed to the authorities

which did not therefore conclude the proceedings "within a reasonable

time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

______________________________________________________________________

14 July 1989 Introduction of the application

20 July 1989 Registration of the application

Examination of the Admissibility

5 March 1990 Commission's decision to invite

the Government to submit

observations on the admissibility

and merits of the application

limited to the issue under

Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention concerning the length

of the proceedings

8 May 1990 Government's observations

11 June 1990 Applicant company's observations

in reply

7 November 1990 Commission's decision to refer the

application to the Second Chamber

5 December 1990 Commission's decision to declare the

application partly admissible

Examination of the Merits

10 April 1991 Commission's consideration of the

state of proceedings

14 October 1991 Commission's deliberations on the

merits, final vote and adoption

of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant