CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 février 1995

.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. 21613/93                       by Laszlo THURZO                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS              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 3 February 1993 by Laszlo Thurzo against Austria and registered on 2 April 1993 under file No. 21613/93;         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 22 September 1994, after an extension of time-limit, and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 7 October 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 1950, is an Austrian national residing in Vienna. Before the Commission, he is represented by Mr. K. Bernhauser, a lawyer practising in Vienna.          On 12 August 1986 the Vienna Police Directorate (Bundes- polizeidirektion) questioned the applicant in connection with investigations concerning a series of fraud cases committed to the disadvantage of the Austrian Bundesländer Insurance Company. At this time the proceedings involved more than fifty suspects, including a member of the managing board. The applicant was heard on the suspicion of having committed, in 1982/83, altogether ten cases of fraud in that he made false claims under insurance policies for shops owned by him as well as under household insurance policies.         On 7 January 1987 preliminary investigations (Voruntersuchung) were opened against the applicant. The applicant was summoned to appear before the investigating judge on 23 February 1987. However, the summons could not be served at the address which had been available to the court. Subsequently, investigations were carried out to establish where the applicant was residing.         On 22 May 1987 the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter) at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Straflandesgericht) heard the applicant on the suspicion against him. Subsequently, further investigations were carried out by the Economic Police (Wirtschafts- polizei) of the Vienna Police Directorate. In March 1987 the indictment was preferred against twenty-one suspects, and in March and May 1988 against four further suspects.         On 30 August 1988 the Public Prosecutor's Office requested that the applicant be heard again on one of the cases of fraud he was suspected of. On 19 September 1988 the investigating judge requested the Vienna Economic Police to do so.         On 12 October 1988 the Vienna Economic Police heard the applicant again. On the same day the investigating judge requested that further investigations be carried out as regards the applicant's case.         On 19 January 1989 the Vienna Police Directorate, Economic Police, submitted the results of these investigations.         Meanwhile, another judge P. had become competent as investigating judge in the applicant's case. After she had withdrawn from the case on the ground of bias, the case was, on 1 February 1989, transferred to judge G. He retired on 31 January 1990. Subsequently, the case was transferred to judge A.         On 4 May 1990 the investigating judge requested a copy of the minutes of the trial, which had been held on 28 January 1988, against one of the main suspects, whose case was, at the time of the request, pending before the Supreme Court. On 3 September 1990 the investigating judge requested the Supreme Court for a copy of the minutes of the trial against another suspect. On 10 September 1990 the Supreme Court transmitted copies of the two minutes requested. Subsequently, further investigations were carried out by the Economic Police. However, it appears that they did not concern the applicant's case. Their results were submitted to the court on 5 November 1990.         On 12 December 1990 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) preferred the indictment against the applicant.         On 22 February 1991 the proceedings against the applicant were separated from the proceedings against other suspects.         On 30 July 1991 the presiding judge fixed 18 September 1991 as the date for the trial against the applicant. However, as two witnesses informed the court that they would not be available on that day, the trial was postponed.         On 18 December 1991 the trial against the applicant was held before the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. The applicant was convicted of grave fraud and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The sentence was suspended on probation. The written judgment was served upon the applicant on 27 April 1992.          On 9 July 1992 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde).         On 19 October 1992 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal (Berufung). On the appeal of the Public Prosecutor's Office against sentence, it decided that only a period of eight months was to be suspended on probation.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular about the delay between 22 May 1987, when the first hearing before the Investigating Judge took place, and 12 December 1990, when the indictment was preferred.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 3 February 1993 and registered on 2 April 1993.         On 11 May 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 22 September 1994, after an extension of the time-limit. The applicant replied on 7 October 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 submit that the proceedings against the applicant formed part of the "Bundesländer proceedings", which concerned a large number of suspects and numerous charges of fraud committed to the disadvantage of the Bundesländer Insurance Company. The duration of the preliminary investigations of about three years was due to the complexity of the proceedings and the fact that the Vienna Economic Police had to be requested several times to carry out additional inquiries. There was only one period of inactivity from February 1989 to February 1990, when judge G. had been the competent investigating judge. A further delay of three months was caused as the date for the trial which had been fixed for 18 September 1991, had to be postponed to 18 December 1991 as two witnesses were not available. However this was not imputable to the Austrian authorities. Finally, the appeal proceedings were terminated without any delays.         The applicant maintains that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.         The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention institutions 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, unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,       without prejudging the merits of the case.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber         (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (C.L. ROZAKIS)