CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 avril 1994

.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. 20400/92                     by Johannes EBERL                     against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   A. WEITZEL, President                C.L. ROZAKIS                F. ERMACORA                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 15 May 1992 by Johannes Eberl against Austria and registered on 30 July 1992 under file No. 20400/92;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 12 February 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1993;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:     THE FACTS        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant, born in 1968, is an Austrian national and resident at Fügen in Tyrol.        On 12 October 1987 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Zell am Ziller District Court (Bezirksgericht) against his uncle. He claimed primarily that the defendant had to vacate a cottage which the applicant had inherited from his mother, or, in the alternative, that the contract of lease between the applicant's deceased mother and the defendant be declared null and void and the defendant vacate the cottage concerned.        On 11 April 1988 the Zell am Ziller District Court dismissed the applicant's action. The District Court considered that the applicant's mother had validly concluded a contract of lease with the defendant for a term of thirty years which, in accordance with S. 1116 a of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) had not terminated upon his mother's death. The judgment was served on 28 April 1988.        On 25 May 1988 the applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung) with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht). The defendant filed his submissions in reply on 7 September 1988. On 12 October 1988 the files were forwarded to another chamber of the Innsbruck Regional Court for consultation in connection with a further civil suit brought by the applicant against his uncle. The files were returned on 6 July 1989.        On 6 September 1989 the Innsbruck Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on 8 January 1990.        On 5 February 1990 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (Revision) with the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). The defendant made submissions on 7 March 1990.        On 12 December 1991 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision was served on 2 March 1992.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the appeal proceedings before the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 15 May 1992 and registered on 30 July 1992.        On 14 October 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.        On 12 February 1993 the Government submitted their observations. The observations in reply by the applicant were submitted on 1 March 1993.   THE LAW        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the appeal proceedings before the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court lasted unreasonably long.        The Government argue that the length of the proceedings was reasonable. In particular, the facts underlying the proceedings in question were not simple from a legal point of view. Moreover, the files were needed for a considerable time in the context of another set of proceedings.        As regards the relevant period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), the Commission notes that the applicant lodged his action with the Zell am Ziller District Court on 12 October 1987. His appeal with the Innsbruck Regional Court dated 25 May 1988. The proceedings ended on 2 March 1992 when the Supreme Court's judgment of 12 December 1991 was served upon the applicant. The appeal proceedings the applicant complains of thus lasted about three years, nine months and one week.        The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the case- law of the Convention organs and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in this instance call for an overall assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cesarini judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-B, p. 17, para. 26).        The Commission notes that the applicant's case related to the vacation of a cottage. While the first instance proceedings before the Zell am Ziller District Court terminated within six months, there were delays in the course of the appeal proceedings before the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court. These appeal proceedings lasted more than one year, seven months and two weeks, and more than two years and three weeks, respectively.        Nevertheless, the Commission considers that these delays do not appear substantial enough for the total length of the appeal proceedings to be regarded as excessive.        Consequently, there is no appearance of a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a "reasonable time", as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                    (A. WEITZEL)