CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 janvier 1996

.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. 22604/93                       by P. W.                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 16 January 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              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 11 August 1993 by P. W. against Austria and registered on 10 September 1993 under file No. 22604/93;        Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 6 February 1995 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 3 April 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant, an Austrian national born in 1942 and residing in Vienna, is a tax consultant (Wirtschaftstreuhänder) by profession.        On 8 January 1990 the Linz Tax Office (Finanzamt) decided to institute criminal proceedings under the Code of Financial Offences (Finanzstrafgesetz) against the applicant as it suspected him of having aided and abetted one of his clients to evade taxes.        On 12 January 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision and also requested that suspensive effect be granted.        On 9 May 1990 the Upper Austria Regional Directorate for Finance (Finanzlandesdirektion) dismissed his appeal finding   that there were sufficient reasons for instituting criminal proceedings against him. The Regional Directorate did not deal with the applicant's request for suspensive effect.        On 29 May 1990 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Directorate's decision of 9 May 1990.        On 20 November 1991 the Linz Tax Office submitted its observations in reply to the Administrative Court requesting the Administrative Court to quash the decision complained of.        Meanwhile the applicant had instituted unsuccessfully proceedings against the Regional Directorate's failure to grant suspensive effect. In these proceedings the Administrative Court, on 18 March 1992, dismissed the applicant's complaint.   Furthermore, on 28 February 1991 the Regional Directorate served by mistake for a second time its decision of 9 May 1990 on the applicant.   The applicant introduced again a complaint to the Administrative Court which the latter, on 18 March 1992, declared inadmissible.        On 22 February 1994 the Administrative Court quashed the Regional Directorate's decision of 9 May 1990 and remitted the case back to the Regional Directorate.   It found that, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had failed to submit tax declarations on behalf of his client, the tax liability and its amount had been known to the Tax Office.   The applicant's conduct could therefore not be qualified as tax evasion.        On 19 October 1994 the applicant filed a complaint (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court against the Regional Directorate's inactivity in deciding again on his appeal of 12 January 1990.   On 31 October 1994 the Administrative Court transmitted the applicant's complaint to the Regional Directorate for observations.        On 7 November 1994 the Regional Directorate decided again on the applicant's appeal of 12 January 1990 and discontinued the criminal proceedings.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that in the criminal proceedings instituted against him, did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 11 August 1993 and registered on 10 September 1993.        On 12 October 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 6 February 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant replied on 3 April 1995.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that in the criminal proceedings instituted against him, he did not receive a hearing within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.        Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) provides, inter alia, 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 were conducted within a reasonable time.   Before the tax authorities the proceedings were conducted expeditiously and lasted for about four months.   Before the Administrative Court the proceedings lasted for some three years and nine months.   However, the latter period could not be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings, as the Administrative Court did not determine the well- foundedness of the criminal charge against the applicant but whether the institution of criminal proceedings was admissible as such.        The Government submit further that the proceedings were complex as they related to difficult questions of law in the area of double taxation.   Moreover the delays occurred in the proceedings were attributable to the applicant who had filed numerous appeals which led to the opening of parallel proceedings and thus delayed the main proceedings.        The applicant disputes the above arguments.   He submits that the parallel proceedings to which the Government refer to did not prevent the authorities from deciding within a reasonable time on the criminal charge against him.   The proceedings were also not complex.   Moreover, the authorities should have dealt with his case with particular diligence as the charge of tax offence against him as a tax consultant was extremely harmful for his professional reputation.        The Commission finds that this complaint raises questions of law and fact which require an examination of the merits.   The application cannot, therefore, be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.        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)