CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 septembre 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. 21611/93                       by Helmut HASLHOFER                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC              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 18 December 1992 by Helmut HASLHOFER against Austria and registered on 2 April 1993 under file No. 21611/93;        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 3 January 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 24 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 is an Austrian citizen, born in 1934. He is an insurance agent by profession. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. J. Unterweger, a lawyer practising in Vienna.        On 14 July and 15 July 1986 the General Police Directorate (Generaldirektion für die öffentliche Sicherheit) questioned the applicant on the suspicion of having committed grave fraud and fraudulent conversion.   The investigations concerned a series of fraud cases committed to the disadvantage of the Austrian Bundesländer Insurance Company, involving initially about one hundred suspects and an overall damage which amounted to AS 130 million.        On 10 September 1986 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht), upon the request of the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundes- polizeidirektion) of 4 September 1986, instituted preliminary investigations against the applicant.   On 17 February 1987 the applicant was questioned by the Investigating Judge.        On 26 August 1987 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staats- anwaltschaft) filed the bill of indictment charging the applicant with having acted as an accessory to fraudulent conversion.   The bill of indictment related to offences committed by altogether 21 accused.        The trial against the accused started before the Vienna Regional Court on 20 January 1988.   It continued on altogether 34 days between January and June, a last hearing was held in September 1988.   The concept of the trial was to hold the hearings concerning the various accused individually so that they only had to appear at some days of the trial.        Hearings relating to the applicant took place on 21 January and 8 February 1988.   At the further hearing of 5 May 1988 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office extended the bill of indictment and also charged the applicant with grave fraud (schwerer Betrug).   Several motions for a further taking of evidence were filed.   However, the Regional Court dismissed these additional requests and closed the trial.   The applicant was convicted of having acted as an accessory to fraudulent conversion and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.        On 31 January 1990 the applicant was served with the written copy of the judgment.   On 14 February 1990 he lodged a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) and an appeal (Berufung) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof).        On 6 September 1990 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the Vienna Regional Court.        On 2 December 1991 proceedings were resumed before the Vienna Regional Court.   On 4 December 1991 the case was referred back to the Investigating Judge.        On 3 August 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office dropped the charges against the applicant, and the Regional Court discontinued the criminal proceedings.   The decision was served upon the applicant on 12 August 1992.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 18 December 1992 and registered on 2 April 1993.        On 12 October 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.        On 3 January 1994 the Government submitted their observations. The observations in reply by the applicant were submitted, following an extension of the time-limit, on 24 March 1994.   THE LAW        The applicant complains 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 maintain that the relevant period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) started on 10 September 1986 when the Vienna Regional Court opened investigation proceedings against the applicant, and ended on 3 August 1992, when the proceedings were discontinued.   Moreover, referring to the case-law of the Convention organs, they argue that the length of the proceedings was mainly due to the complexity of the case and that no considerable delays were imputable to the Austrian authorities.        The applicant objects particularly to the Government's explanation as to the complexity of the case.        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)