CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 27 février 1997

.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. 28838/95                       by Richard SCHELLING                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 27 February 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              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 25 September 1995 by Richard SCHELLING against Austria and registered on 3 October 1995 under file No. 28838/95;        Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 11 June 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 5 August 1996 ;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen residing in Langenegg (Austria).   He is a farmer.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        On 16 August 1988 the applicant requested permissions under the Water Act (Wasserrechtsgesetz) and the Landscape Protection Act (Landschaftsschutzgesetz) which were necessary for putting a culvert through a drain on agricultural land owned by him.        On 14 September 1988 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) conducted an oral hearing on the applicant's requests and inspected his land.        On 21 June 1990 the District Administrative Authority refused the requested permissions.        On 5 July 1990 the applicant appealed.        On 12 December 1990 the Vorarlberg Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) granted the requested permission under the Water Act.        On 2 April 1991 the Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung) dismissed the applicant's appeal insofar it concerned the request for a permission under the Landscape Protection Act.        On 28 May 1991 the applicant introduced a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government's decision.        On 12 June 1991 the Administrative Court transmitted the applicant's complaint to the Regional Government for observations.        On 9 July 1991 the Regional Government commented on the applicant's complaint.        On 6 May 1996 the Administrative Court quashed the Regional Government's decision and remitted the case to the latter.        The proceedings are still pending.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that the proceedings on his request under the Landscape Protection Act were not concluded within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 25 September 1995 and registered on 3 October 1995.        On 28 February 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 11 June 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant replied on 5 August 1996.   THE LAW        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that the proceedings on his request under the Landscape Protection Act have not been conducted within a reasonable time.        Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, as far as material to the case, read as follows:        "1.    In the determination of ... any criminal charge against      him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable      time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.      ..."        The Government submit that the case as it had been submitted to the Administrative Court was particularly complex as it involved difficult questions of constitutional and administrative law.   The applicant had also failed to draw the Administrative Court's attention to the fact that he considered his case as a matter of urgency.        This is disputed by the applicant.   In his view the case was not complex at all as in deciding it the Administrative could an did rely on its recent case law on similar issues.   The length of the proceedings at issue was entirely attributable to the Austrian authorities.        The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the      merits of the case.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber