CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 octobre 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. 27329/95                       by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN                       against Portugal          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 22 October 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs    G.H. THUNE, President            MM     J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms     M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 6 June 1994 by Mats WETTERGREN and Anna-Lena WESSMAN against Portugal and registered on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27329/95 ;        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      1 April 1997 and the applicants' observations in reply submitted      on 3 July 1997 ;        Having deliberated,        Decides as follows :   THE FACTS        The applicants are Swedish citizens, born in 1953 and 1959, respectively, and residing in Stockholm.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        In 1987 the applicants and the Region of Madeira (Região Autónoma da Madeira), represented by its Regional Government (Governo Regional da Madeira), reached a cooperation agreement regarding the creation of a tropical bird garden on this Portuguese island.        By Resolution (Resolução) no. 1607/87 of 1 December 1987 the Regional Government gave the concession of the area to the applicants and in October 1988 the bird garden was opened to the public.        However, by Resolution no. 743/91 of 11 July 1991, the Regional Government revoked Resolution no. 1607/87 and cancelled the agreement. It was stated that the applicants had not fulfilled some parts of the agreement, namely payment of the rent and of the agreed percentage on the entrance fees.   Subsequently, the authorities took over the administration of the bird garden.        On 10 July 1992 the applicants initiated proceedings for damages against the Regional Government before the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Administrativo de círculo) of Lisbon.        The Regional Government replied on 30 October 1992, maintaining that the proceedings, according to Portuguese law, should be taken against the Region of Madeira, the Regional Government being only the executive organ of the Region.        In their subsequent reply, on 17 November 1992, the applicants requested that the respondent party be changed to the Region of Madeira.        The Administrative Tribunal gave its judgment, without a hearing, on 7 October 1994.   It first considered that it was not legally possible to have the respondent party changed at the particular stage of proceedings when the applicants had made their request.   The Administrative Tribunal next found, agreeing with the Regional Government, that the action for damages could only be directed against the Region of Madeira.   The case was thus dismissed without an examination of the merits.        The applicants appealed against this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (Supremo Tribunal Administrativo), where the case is presently pending.     COMPLAINT        The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings. They invoke Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 6 June 1994 and was registered on 15 May 1995.        On 15 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the question concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention to the respondent Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of this question.   The Commission declared inadmissible the remainder of the applicants' complaints.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 1 April 1997, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicants replied on 3 July 1997.     THE LAW        The applicants' complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question.   These proceedings began on 10 July 1992 and are still pending.        According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings - a period of five years and three months to date - is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 para. 1 (Art.   6-1) of the Convention.   The Government refute the allegation.        The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.        For these reasons,   unanimously, the Commission        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,      the remainder of the application.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber