CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 septembre 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. 20114/92                       by Alexander KOVAR                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 September 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                  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 May 1992 by Alexander KOVAR against Austria and registered on 12 June 1992 under file No. 20114/92;         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 17 February 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 29 March 1994;         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 1952, is an Austrian national. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. K. Bernhauser, a lawyer practising in Vienna.         On 14 May 1990 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) received a criminal information (Strafanzeige) from the Lower Austrian Security Office (Sicherheitsbüro) stating that on 27 March 1990 S., a businessman, had been beaten up in his office by persons unknown who demanded payment of US $ 78,000. S. had suspected the applicant, who was his competitor and business partner, to be behind this incident.         On 1 August 1990 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) requested the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) to open preliminary investigations against the applicant on the suspicion of having committed inter alia attempted blackmail (versuchte Erpressung). By letter dated 3 August 1990 the applicant informed the Court that he had appointed Mr. Bernhauser as his counsel.         On 6 September 1990 the applicant was questioned as suspect by the Investigating Judge at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. On 28 September 1990 the Investigating Judge questioned S. as a witness.         On 15 and 22 October 1990, additional charges (Nachtragsanzeige) were brought before the Prosecutor's Office, saying that S. had again been threatened by telephone on October 3, 8, 14 and 16, 1990 respectively, and been told to effect payment.         On 31 January 1991 the Prosecutor's Office requested the Regional Court to include the additional charges in the pending preliminary investigations.         On 26 June 1992 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, upon the Public Prosecutor's request of 23 June 1992, discontinued the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the Prosecutor did not see any further reason to pursue these proceedings.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He submits in particular that there were no reasons to justify the delay between September 1990 and June 1992, when the proceedings were finally discontinued.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 25 May 1992 and registered on 12 June 1992.         On 1 December 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.         On 17 February the Government submitted their observations. The observations in reply by the applicant were submitted on 29 March 1994.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), so far as relevant, provides that "in the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time".         The Government consider that the proceedings lasted from 1 August 1990 until 26 June 1992. Referring to the case-law of the Convention organs, they argue that the case was complex, as there was little evidence to show in what direction inquiries should be conducted. Moreover, they submit that the Public Prosecutor waited before taking his final decision as he could reasonably assume that further attempts to blackmail the victim might occur. The Government, therefore, maintain that the overall duration of the proceedings of less than two years cannot be considered as being unreasonable.         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time" (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 by a majority         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE       without prejudging the merits of the case.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber         (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (A. WEITZEL)