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. 20642/92                       by Aynur ÜNLÜ                       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 by Aynur ÜNLÜ against Austria on 9 September 1992 and registered on 16 September 1992 under file No. 20642/92;        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      1 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 2 October 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Turkish 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 being in Austria between 10 August 1990 and 4 September 1990 without a valid visa.   A penal order was issued on 6 February 1991 by the Dornbirn District Authority by which the applicant was fined AS 3,300.00, with 6 days' detention in default.        The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Security Directorate was rejected on 10 May 1991, although the fine was reduced.        On 16 October 1991 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 17 February 1992 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.   The applicant's representative received the Administrative Court's decision on 9 March 1992.   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 application was introduced on 9 September 1992 and registered on 16 September 1992.        The Government's observations were submitted on 1 February 1995 and the applicant's observations in reply on 2 October 1995.   THE LAW        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   The Government consider that the application was brought out of time as the application reached the Commission only on 14 September 1992, that is, more than six months after the final decision (the Administrative Court's decision of 17 February 1992) was served on the applicant's representative on 9 March 1992.   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 complied with the six months rule contained in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the applicant submits, and the Commission notes, that 9 September 1992 was a Wednesday and 14 September 1992 was a Monday.        The Commission recalls that the date of a final decision is the date on which an applicant's representative received the decision (cf. No. 23860/94, Dec. 29.11.95, to be published in D.R., and the case-law referred to there).   In the present case that date is 9 March 1992.        The Commission further recalls that it generally takes as the date of introduction of an application the date of a first communication from an applicant (Rule 44 (4) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure).   That date is 9 September 1992 in the present case, rather than 14 September 1992, as suggested by the Government, which is the date of receipt of the first communication.   The Commission sees no reason in the present case to deviate from the general rule, there being no evidence, or allegation, of manipulation of the date of the first communication by the applicant's representative.   Accordingly, the Commission is not prevented by the six months rule from dealing with the case.        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)