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. 20676/92                       by Ludwig HALLER                       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 11 September 1992 by Ludwig HALLER against Austria and registered under file No. 20676/92;        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 4 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 unlawfully putting out bait to attract game, contrary to local hunting legislation.   A penal order was issued on 15 February 1990 by the Bregenz District Authority by which the applicant was fined a total of AS 11,000.00, with 336 hours' detention in default.        The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government was rejected on 15 November 1990.        On 11 June 1991 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 17 February 1992 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 4 May 1995.   THE LAW        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   The Government consider that the case does not disclose a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6).        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)