CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 avril 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. 25965/94                       by Helmut RADOLF                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 April 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                  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   25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 18 October 1994 by Helmut RADOLF against Austria and registered on 16 December 1994 under file No. 25965/94;        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 19 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 20 May 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, born in 1936, is an Austrian citizen and resident at Sulz im Wienerwald.   He is a mechanic by profession.   In the proceedings before the Commission, he is represented by Mr. K. Arlamovsky and Mr. M. Brunner, lawyers practising in Vienna.        The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        On 5 November 1980 the Tax Office (Finanzamt) for the 12th, 13th, 14th and 23rd District of Vienna, laid information with the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft), charging the applicant with tax evasion.        On 7 November 1980 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) instituted preliminary investigations against the applicant on the suspicion of tax evasion, and also issued a search warrant and an arrest warrant.   The applicant's premises were searched, and he was arrested on 20 November 1980.   During his detention he was questioned on the charges against him.   He was released on 28 November 1980.        In December 1982 the Regional Court adjourned the investigation proceedings in order to await the outcome of tax proceedings against the applicant which were conducted by the Mödling Tax Office.   In March 1983 the Mödling Tax Office filed a preliminary report with the Vienna Regional Court regarding the results of its investigations.   It noted that in order to prepare the final report, it had to await a report of the Vienna Tax Office, however, appeal proceedings against the various tax assessments were still pending.   The Court inquired about the state of the report in June 1983, November 1984 and January 1986.   In January 1990 the Mödling Tax Office, upon a further query, informed the Regional Court that no final (rechtskräftig) decisions had been taken. Inquiries in 1991 were to no avail.        In January 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office requested that the tax report concerning the applicant be amended.   This amendment was received by the Regional Court in March 1992, and the report prepared by the Vienna tax authorities in May 1992.   The applicant was questioned on 8 July 1992.        On 7 October 1992 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office drew up the bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of tax evasion committed between 1978 and 1979.   The applicant's objection (Einspruch) against the bill of indictment remained unsuccessful.        On 27 April 1993 the Regional Court directed that the trial should be held on 5 August 1993.   Upon the applicant's request, the hearing was adjourned and the trial scheduled for 4 November 1993. Upon his further request, it was postponed until 25 November 1993.   On 25 November 1993 the Regional Court postponed the trial sine die in order to take further evidence, as requested by the defence.        On 28 April 1994 the Vienna Regional Court, following a further hearing, acquitted the applicant.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant's remaining complaint under   6 para. 1 of the Convention relates to the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 18 October 1994 and registered on 16 December 1994.        On 29 November 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the respondent Government.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.        The Government's written observations were submitted, after an extension of the time-limit, on 19 March 1996.   The applicant replied on 20 April 1996.   THE LAW        The applicant's remaining complaint relates to the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   He invokes 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which includes the following provision:        " In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him,      everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable      time ..."        The Government maintain that the length of the proceedings was due to the complexity of the case.   There were no undue delays and no periods of inactivity on the part of the Vienna Regional Court.        According to the applicant, the case was not particularly complex.   Moreover, the Republic of Austria is not only responsible for the conduct of the Vienna Regional Court, but also for delays caused by the tax authorities.        The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention institutions 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 a thorough examination of this complaint is required, both as to the law and as to the facts.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application, without      prejudging the merits of the case.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber