CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;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 }                          EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                  FIRST CHAMBER                            Application No. 16942/90                                   Gert Lagler                                     against                                     Austria                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 6 September 1995)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                         Page   I.     INTRODUCTION       (paras. 1-5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS       (paras. 6-8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 9-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         A.     Complaint declared admissible             (para. 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         B.     Point at issue             (para. 10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         C.     As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention             (paras. 11-18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3               CONCLUSION             (para. 19). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4   APPENDIX : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The present Report concerns Application No. 16942/90 introduced on 19 July 1990 against Austria and registered on 27 July 1990.         The applicant is a Austrian national born in 1949 and resident in Vienna.         The respondent Government, Austria, are represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   2.     The application was communicated to the Government on 13 February 1992.   Following an exchange of written observations, the complaint relating to the length of proceedings (Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) was declared admissible on 13 April 1994.   The decision on admissibility is appended to this Report.   3.     Having noted that there is no basis upon which a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention can be secured, the Commission (First Chamber), after deliberating, adopted this Report on 6 September 1995 in accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, 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   4.     In this Report the Commission states its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a violation of the Convention by Austria.   5.     The text of the Report is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     On 20 December 1984 the applicant issued a writ out of the Vienna Regional Court against his former parents-in-law in connection with disputes arising out of the financing of a dwelling house.   A witness was heard on 26 November 1985 and the proceedings were adjourned until 25 February 1986.   On that date, separate proceedings between the parties were joined to the present proceedings.   Further witnesses were heard on 6 and 9 June 1986.   On 16 October 1986 the applicant was heard and on 27 February 1987 the Court decided to examine the file relating to criminal proceedings pending against the applicant.   Further details of the criminal proceedings may be found in the Commission's decision on the admissibility of Application No. 16906/90 (Dec. 8.5.95, pending before the First Chamber).   The proceedings were adjourned.   7.     On 6 September 1988 the Court decided that it did not need to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings before taking a decision in the case.   On 31 March 1989 the applicant's former wife and the defendants were heard, and on 11 July 1989 the applicant's former wife was heard again.   A further witness was heard on 30 November 1989.   On 28 June 1990, with the agreement of the parties, the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.   The applicant requested the resumption of the proceedings on 2 February 1991.   The request was refused on 20 March 1991, but granted on the applicant's appeal (Rekurs) by the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 8 May 1991.   8.     On 15 May 1993 the Regional Court a gave partial judgment against the applicant.   He appealed to the Vienna Court of Appeal which, on 17 November 1993, confirmed the judgment of 15 May.   It appears that the proceedings are still pending.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   9.     The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case has not been heard within a reasonable time.   B.     Point at issue   10.    The only point at issue is whether the length of the proceedings complained of has exceeded the "reasonable time" requirement referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   C.     As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   11.    The relevant part of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides as follows :         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,       everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time       by (a) ... tribunal ..."   12.    The proceedings in question concerned an action brought by the applicant over the financing of a dwelling house.    The purpose of the proceedings is to obtain a decision in a dispute over "civil rights and obligations", and they accordingly fall within the scope of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   13.    These proceedings, which began on 20 December 1984 and which have not yet been terminated, have already lasted over ten years.   14.    The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30).   15.    According to the Government, the length of the period in question is due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct.   16.    The Commission notes that the case concerns an alleged intra- family debt and cannot be considered as particularly complex.   The applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings.   The Commission notes that the applicant issued his writ in December 1984, but that the first substantive hearing took place on 26 November 1985.   There was a period between 28 June 1990 and 8 May 1991 when the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and then a further two years elapsed before the partial first instance judgment was given.   17.    The Commission reaffirms that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vocaturo judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).   18.    In the light of the criteria established by case-law and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.         CONCLUSION   19.    The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (C.L. ROZAKIS)