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. 24883/94                       by Günther SALZMANN                       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 21 July 1994 by Günther SALZMANN against Austria and registered under file No. 24883/94;        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      6 November 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 informed on 7 June 1988 that administrative criminal proceedings would be brought against him for unlawful cutting of trees and bushes in a protected landscape area.   A penal order was issued on 16 February 1989 by the Bregenz District Authority.   The applicant was fined a total of AS 49,500.00, with 35 days' detention in default.        The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government was rejected on 12 May 1989, although the fine was reduced.        On 2 October 1989 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 28 December 1993 the Administrative Court dismissed the bulk of the applicant's administrative complaint, and quashed the decision of 12 May 1989 to a limited extent.   The applicant's representative received the decision of 28 December 1993 on 7 February 1994.   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.   He also alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention by reason of the length of the proceedings.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The Government's observations were submitted on 6 November 1995. The applicant has not submitted observations in reply.   THE LAW        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   The Government do not accept that the case discloses a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6).   In connection with the length of the proceedings, the Government point out that the proceedings were conducted particularly expeditiously before the administrative authorities, and state that the proceedings before the Administrative Court lasted as long as they did because supreme courts are required both to obtain all the documents in the case, and also to subject the case to a comprehensive and thorough scrutiny.   The Government also point out that the applicant was partially successful before the Administrative Court.        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)