CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mai 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 17770/91                       by Maria Barbara KÖGL                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 13 May 1992, the following members being present:              MM.     E. BUSUTTIL, Acting President of the First Chamber                   F. ERMACORA                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir     Basil HALL            Mr.     C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.    J. LIDDY            MM.     M. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER              Mr.     M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 24 October 1990 by Maria B. KÖGL against Austria and registered on 7 February 1991 under file No. 17770/91;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1948, resides at Kufstein in Austria.   Before the Commission she is represented by Mr. W. Beck, a lawyer practising in Innsbruck.         In 1964 the Head of the Tyrol Provincial Government (Landeshaupt- mann) expropriated real property belonging to the applicant in Kufstein in order to construct railway facilities.   In 1967 this property was returned to the applicant as the railway facilities were not built.         On 22 January 1971 the applicant's real property was again expropriated for the same purpose.   The Kufstein District Court then awarded the applicant compensation amounting to 2,650,000 AS.         As in the applicant's view the railway facilities still did not eventuate, she applied on 23 December 1982 for cancellation of the expropriation decision of 22 January 1971.   On 7 August 1984 the Head of the Tyrol Provincial Government declared her application inadmissible.         On 30 August 1984 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Federal Ministry of Public Economy and Transport (Bundesministe- rium für öffentliche Wirtschaft und Verkehr).         On 22 February 1985 the Federal Ministry dismissed the appeal.         Against this decision the applicant filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).   On 4 December 1986 the latter partly upheld the appeal in so far as the Provincial Government on 7 August 1984 had not decided on the merits of the applicant's application.   The remainder of the appeal was transferred to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) for further decision.         On 25 February 1987 the Administrative Court dismissed the remainder of the appeal.         Following the decision of the Constitutional Court proceedings were resumed before the Federal Ministry which gave a new decision on 15 November 1988.         The applicant filed a further appeal which the Administrative Court upheld on 18 October 1989 and referred the case back to the Federal Ministry.   The applicant's lawyer received this decision on 15 November 1989.         The Federal Ministry gave its further decision on 10 July 1990 in which it dismissed the applicant's claims and confirmed the expropriation.   The applicant did not file a further appeal against this decision.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of these proceedings, lasting 26 years.   She states that the case was not complex and that she did not contribute to the length.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention of the length of the proceedings.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention states, in so far as relevant:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...       everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a       reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal       established by law."         According to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.         The applicant's complaint concerns the issue whether the proceedings were conducted within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         In the Commission's opinion, the period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the present case extends to the date of the last decision by a tribunal within the meaning of this provision.   In particular, the examination of this period cannot extend to subsequent administrative proceedings, if they are not again followed by court proceedings.         In the present case the last judicial decision was that of the Administrative Court of 18 October 1989 in which it upheld the applicant's appeal.   Administrative proceedings were then resumed before the Federal Ministry which gave its decision on 10 July 1990. The applicant did not appeal against this decision to a court.         It follows that the decision of the Administrative Court of 18 October 1989 was the final decision regarding the subject of the applicant's complaint for the purposes of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   This decision was received by the applicant's lawyer on 15 November 1989.   However, the application was submitted not to the Commission until 24 October 1990, that is more than six months after the date of this decision.         Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.         It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 26 in conjunction with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 26+27-3) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the First Chamber     Acting President of the First Chamber               (M. de SALVIA)                          (E. BUSUTTIL)