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. 21585/93                       by Gerhard RESCH                       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 December 1992 by Gerhard RESCH against Austria and registered under file No. 21585/93;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission; -     the Commissions's partial decision of 18 October 1994;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      1 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 27 March 1995;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Peter Wagner, a lawyer practising in Linz.        The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal proceedings of contraventions of safety at work regulations.   Five penal orders were issued by the Rohrbach District Authority on 17 May 1991.   The applicant was fined AS 5,000.00 in each case, with six days' detention in default in each case.        The applicant's appeal to the Upper Austrian Provincial Government was rejected on 12 May 1992.        On 29 June 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 Commission took a partial decision in the case on 18 October 1994.        The Government's observations were submitted on 1 February 1995 and the applicant's observations in reply on 27 March 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 REMAINDER OF 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)