CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 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. 20064/92                       by Norberta AURACHER                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 17 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. MARXER                  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 18 May 1992 by Norberta AURACHER against Austria and registered under file No. 20064/92;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      28 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 16 May 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen.   She is represented before the Commission by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.        The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal proceedings of having oral sexual intercourse with a man for money. A penal order was issued on 7 January 1991 by the Bregenz District Authority by which the applicant was fined a total of AS 22,000.00, with 28 days' detention in default.        The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government was rejected on 8 March 1991.        The applicant did not apply to the Constitutional Court.   On 14 October 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that her conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was not accompanied by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular that the Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The Government's observations were submitted on 28 February 1995 and the applicant's observations in reply on 16 May 1995.   THE LAW        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   The Government consider that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she failed to put her case to the Constitutional Court.   They refer to cases from 1979 in which the Constitutional Court considered Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the context of administrative criminal offences similar to those at issue in the present case.   They consider that the case does not disclose a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) in any event.        As to the Government's contention that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies, the Commission notes that the Constitutional Court, in the decisions referred to, considered Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention in the context of administrative criminal proceedings.   The Constitutional Court did not, however, give any hint that it was about to review its established opinion as to the compatibility with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the Austrian system of criminal administrative law, and in the event it did not change that opinion.   Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant was not required by Article 26 (Art. 26) to make a constitutional complaint.        The Commission has had regard to the facts of the present case, to the parties' observations, and to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.   It finds that the case raises questions under the Convention which cannot at this stage be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, and which require to be determined on the merits.   No other ground of inadmissibility 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)