CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 septembre 1993

.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. 16494/90                       by Elisabeth SCHOBER                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 September 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the 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 11 April 1990 by Elisabeth SCHOBER against Austria and registered on 24 April 1993 under file No. 24 April 1993;         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 applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1954.   She lives in Steyr and is represented before the Commission by Mr. A. Friedberg, lawyer of Vienna.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant's maternal grandmother died on 5 December 1983. She left the bulk of her estate to her son with provision for only the "reserved portion" to pass to her daughter, the applicant's mother. The applicant's mother made a declaration to the St. Peter in der Au District Court (Bezirksgericht) on 16 December 1983 that she was entitled to and claimed the reserved portion.   On 23 January 1984 the applicant's mother died.   The applicant thenceforth took the place of her mother in the proceedings.         The applicant complains of the length of the following proceedings:   1.     On 18 April 1984 a partial inventory was prepared before a notary.   The estate of the applicant's grandmother was valued at 2,377,607.35 AS.   On 30 August 1984 the applicant submitted to the court a valuation of the estate which put its market value at 4,259,000 AS.   On 4 February 1985 the District Court decided not to include the value put on the estate by the applicant's valuer in the court papers, but to have the estate valued on the basis that it was an hereditary farm (Erbhof) within the meaning of the Hereditary Farms Act (Anerbengesetz).   On 5 June 1985 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Kreisgericht) granted the applicant's appeal (Rekurs) on the basis that the papers before the District Court did not disclose that there was in fact an hereditary farm, and remitted the case to the District Court.   On 15 October 1985 the District Court found that the estate did constitute an hereditary farm, and again ordered revaluation under the Hereditary Farms Act.   The applicant's appeal against this decision was also successful: the decision of 15 October 1985 was quashed by the Regional Court on 25 June 1986.         On the request of the applicant, the District Court decided on 26 January 1987 inter alia to separate the applicant's grandmother's estate from the property of the applicant's uncle, to appoint a trustee for the administration of the estate and to require a further inventory.         On 5 February 1987 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) granted the applicant's uncle's further appeal (Revisionsrekurs) against the decision of 25 June to quash the decision of 15 October 1985, and remitted the case to the District Court for decision on whether the estate was an hereditary farm.   The applicant's representative received the decision of 5 February on 26 March 1987.         On 27 February 1987 the St. Pölten Regional Court granted the applicant's uncle's appeal against the decision of the St. Peter in der Au Court of 26 January 1987.   The applicant's further appeal against the decision of the Regional Court of 27 February 1987 was rejected by the Supreme Court on 24 March 1988.   The Supreme Court's decision was served on the applicant's representative on 18 May 1988.         On 16 May 1989 the District Court found that the applicant's grandmother's estate constituted an hereditary farm and set the transfer value at 1,630,000 AS.   The applicant's appeal of 31 May 1989 to the Regional Court was rejected on 28 February 1990.   The applicant's further appeal to the Supreme Court of 29 March 1990 was rejected on 26 April 1990.   It was received by the applicant's representative on 20 June 1990.   On 8 October 1990 the St. Peter in der Au District Court took a decision ending the administration proceedings and transferring the hereditary farm to the applicant's uncle.   The applicant appealed.         In a letter of 24 March 1993 the President of the St. Pölten Regional Court asked the applicant's representative whether he wished to maintain the outstanding aspects of the proceedings, namely the applicant's appeals (Rekurse) against the District Court's decisions of 8 October 1990 and an application the applicant had made on 9 October 1990 for the registration of her part of the estate.   The representative replied on 31 March 1993 that he did wish to pursue the proceedings.   2.     In proceedings independent of the above, the applicant on 7 September 1984 introduced proceedings against her uncle for the amount due to her under her mother's estate.   On 7 December 1984 the District Court adjourned the proceedings until the courts had finally decided whether the applicant's grandmother's estate was or was not an hereditary farm.   These proceedings are still pending.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains of the length of the above proceedings, alleging a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.         The applicant also initially alleged that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention has been violated by the decision of the Supreme Court of 5 February 1987 as to its interpretation of the Hereditary Farms Act.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 11 April 1990 and registered on 24 April 1990.         On 2 December 1991 the Commission decided to declare inadmissible the complaint concerning the Supreme Court's decision of 5 February 1987, and to communicate to the respondent Government the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.         The respondent Government submitted their observations on 27 March 1992 and the applicant submitted her observations in reply on 21 May 1992.     THE LAW         The applicant considers that the proceedings referred to above exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as far as relevant, provides:              "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations            ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a            reasonable time ..."         The Government contend that, given the factual and legal complexity of the case and the applicants' conduct, the application is manifestly ill-founded or, in the alternative, that there is no violation of the Convention.         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, namely the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities, and having regard to all the information in its possession, that a thorough examination of this complaint is required, both as to the law and as to the facts.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application, without       prejudging the merits of the case.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)