JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S BERRO ‑ LEF È VRE, VAJIĆ AND M Ø SE

1. We are unable to fin d that there has been no violation of the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.

2. In our view, the starting-point of the period to be taken into consideration was well before 29 November 2002, when the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s request for reimbursement (see paragraph 14 of the judgment).

This opinion is based on the fact that the applicant ’ s request had initially been dismissed by the Federal Minister and the subsequent proceedings were a necessary continuation of that action.

The period to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the length of the proceedings was reasonable therefore began on 3 June 1998 , when the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court . It was from that moment that a “dispute” arose for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 9).

The period ended on 24 February 2006, when the Administrative Court eventually dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. The proceedings therefore lasted seven years , eight months and twenty-one days at three levels of jurisdiction.

3. T he protracted length of the proceedings was due to the fact that there were substantial delays, imputable to the authorities in particular, while the case was pending before the Administrative Court .

It first took the Administrative Court almost three years and seven months – from 3 June 1998 to 30 January 2002 – to quash the Federal Minister ’ s decision because it had been made by the wrong authority (see paragraph 10 of the judgment). In the subsequent proceedings the case , which was of no particular complexity, lay dormant before the Administrative Court from 14 April 2003 until 24 February 2006 ( see paragraphs 17-18).

This second period of inactivity would in itself have sufficed to find a violation in the present case even if, as argued by the majority, the starting ‑ point of the period to be taken into consideration had been 29 November 2002.

4. Thus, having regard to the facts of the case and the Court ’ s case-law on the subject , we do not find any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case from those in cases raising similar issues , where the Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see , for instance, Ludescher v. Austria , no. 35019/97, § 22, 20 December 2001 ; Strobel v. Austria , no. 25929/05, § 27, 4 June 2009 ; and Almesberger v. Austria , no. 13471/06 , § 27, 10 December 2009 ).

We are therefore of the opinion that the length of the proceedings in the present case was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.