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. 18624/91                                   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. 6-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION       (paras. 11-21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         A.     Complaint declared admissible             (para. 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         B.     Point at issue             (para. 12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3         C.     As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention             (paras. 13-20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3               CONCLUSION             (para. 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4   APPENDIX I :       PARTIAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION                   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . .5   APPENDIX II :      FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION                   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . .8   I.INTRODUCTION   1.     The present Report concerns Application No. 18624/91 introduced on 26 July 1991 against Austria and registered on 2 August 1991.         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 19 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 6 April 1994.   The decisions on admissibility are 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 10 July 1986 the applicant issued proceedings out of the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) in his own name and in the name of four companies, of three of which he was both sole shareholder and general manager (Geschäftsführer), against thirty-six named defendants in connection with the failure of the applicant's business enterprises.   7.     On 6 February 1988 the court inspected the file in the criminal proceedings against the applicant which formed the background to the case.   8.     On 8 February 1988 the court decided to adjourn the proceedings until the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known.   The applicant did not appeal against that decision.   9.     The criminal proceedings are still pending.   10.    On 31 May 1988 the court rejected the suit so far as it was brought by the fourth company, which was unrepresented, even though the court had requested that a lawyer be appointed.     III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   11.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that his case has not been heard within a reasonable time.   B.     Point at issue   12.    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   13.    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 ..."   14.    The proceedings in question concern liability for the failure of the applicant's business enterprises.   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.   15.    According to the Government, the period to be considered by the Commission ends on 8 February 1988, as that was a leading decision which may be set aside on the request of one of the parties (prozeßleitende Verfügung).   They consider that the period from 10 July 1986 to 8 February 1988 is "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   16.    The Commission finds that the proceedings, which began on 10 July 1986 and are still pending, have lasted over nine years to date.   Although they have been adjourned, the claim made by the applicant has not been determined, and when the criminal proceedings have ended, the courts will resume consideration of the present case.   17.    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).   18.    The Commission considers that the applicant's conduct is not in itself sufficient to explain the length of the proceedings.   The Commission notes that since the proceedings were adjourned, over seven years have elapsed and there is no indication of when the dispute will be settled.   It considers that no convincing explanation for this delay has been advanced by the respondent Government.     19.    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).   20.    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   21.    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)