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. 20065/92                       by Karl SCHMID                       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 28 April 1992 by Karl SCHMID against Austria and registered under file No. 20065/92;        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 15 May 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.        The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal proceedings of contraventions of the Road Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of an incident on 9 July 1988.   A penal order was issued by the Bregenz District Authority on 13 April 1990 by which the applicant was fined a total of AS 9,020.00, with 396 hours' detention in default.        The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government was rejected on 1 February 1991.        The applicant did not apply to the Constitutional Court.   On 13 September 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that his 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 15 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 he failed to put his case to the Constitutional Court.   They refer to cases from 1979 in which the Constitutional Court considered Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention in the context of administrative criminal offences.   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.   Those cases did not, however, relate to the same type of administrative offence as in the present case, and the Constitutional Court did not 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.   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)