CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 juin 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. 20781/92                       by Franz Otto ACKERL, Franz ACKERL jun.,                          Ernst GRÖTZBACH, Marlies GLAWISCHNIG,                          Günter SCHWALM, Gerhard KLEIN,                          Einar SLADECEK, and Herbert LIMBERGER                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 29 June 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  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 25 October 1991 by Franz Otto ACKERL and others against Austria and registered on 8 October 1992 under file No. 20781/92;         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 applicants are all Austrian citizens and are all judges at the Vienna Labour and Social Court (Arbeits und Sozialgericht).   With the exception of Mr. Grötzbach, they are all represented by Mr. Otto Ackerl, a lawyer practising in Vienna.   Mr. Grötzbach is represented by Mr. Adalbert Laimer, also a lawyer practising in Vienna.         It follows from their statements and the documents submitted that the applicants contested that they were obliged under certain circumstances to take over the functions of other judges without receiving supplementary remuneration.         These requests were rejected by the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 27 August 1990.         An appeal was rejected by the Ministry of Justice on 13 March 1991 insofar as the applicants had complained about the obligation to take over the functions of other judges.   The Ministry stated in its decision that according to Section 68 of the Act on Judges' Duties (RDG), judges have no claim to supplementary payment if their work-load requires them to work overtime.         The applicants then lodged an action with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) alleging that their obligation to represent other judges in instances of sickness, leave and other reasons amounted to forced labour, if and as long as the additional work was not adequately remunerated.         The Administrative Court dismissed the action on 21 October 1991. The decisions were served on the applicants on 21 November 1991.         The Constitutional complaint was not admitted by the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).   It dismissed the complaints on 17 June 1991.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants submit that the Court is understaffed and consequently the delays in dealing with pending matters are substantial.   They point out that according to a report by the Ministry of Justice, some 20 posts for judges were needed in Vienna. Furthermore, they submit that between 1989 and 1991, one or two judges were continuously and for long periods prevented from carrying out their functions and had to be replaced by the other judges.   They point out that in Labour and Social Court disputes special diligence is required under Article 6 of the Convention and consider that the Austrian Government is obliged to take measures in order to guarantee the smooth running of the judicial system and an adequate distribution of the work-load among judges as well as adequate remuneration in the case of a work-load increase.         They allege violations of Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.     The applicants have first invoked Article 4 para. 2 (Art. 4-2) of the Convention which prohibits "forced or compulsory labour".         The first of these adjectives implies physical or mental constraint, a factor which is absent in the present case.         As regards the second adjective, it does not, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, refer just to any form of legal compulsion or obligation.   Work to be carried out in pursuance of freely negotiated or accepted terms of employment cannot, according to the Court, be regarded as falling within the scope of Article 4 (Art. 4) on the sole ground that one of the parties has undertaken with the other to carry out that work and will be subject to sanctions if he or she does not honour his promise (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Van der Mussele judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 70, p. 17, para. 34).         The applicants have freely entered public civil service as judges and thus accepted the conditions of their work.   In any event the applicants have not shown that their individual work-load has increased to such an excessive extent that the obligation to carry it out would have to be considered as "unjust" or "oppressive" or that its performance would constitute "an avoidable hardship".         It follows that there is no appearance of a violation of Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention and this complaint has therefore to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     Insofar as the applicants rely on Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, arguing that in order to comply with the "reasonable time requirement" the number of judges in the Vienna Social Courts would have to be considerably increased, the Commission recalls that, under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, it is only the alleged victim of a violation of Convention rights who is entitled to bring application proceedings.   The applicants cannot themselves claim to be victims of lengthy proceedings and consequently this complaint has to be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione personae.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                        (A. WEITZEL)