CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 novembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D67264 { width:27.95pt; display:inline-block } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .sD6493B2B { width:0.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1DA17C1C { width:26.65pt; display:inline-block } .s4F145F98 { width:23.32pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 50110/99 by Herbert MAURER against Austria     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 November 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J.-P. Costa, President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mrs   F. Tulkens,     Sir   Nicolas Bratza,   Mr   K. Traja,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 29 April 1999 and registered on 3 August 1999,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Austrian national, born in 1948 and residing in Wagram. The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.   On 3 June 1994 an action in defamation ( üble Nachrede ) was brought against the applicant. Trial hearings were held on 8 November 1994, 8 May 1995 and 3 October 1995 before the Herzogenburg District Court ( Bezirksgericht ). On 3 October 1995 the applicant was convicted of defamation and sentenced to a fine. On 4 March 1996, following the applicant’s appeal, the St.   Pölten Court of Appeal ( Landesgericht ) quashed the sentence because of errors of procedure and law, and referred the case back to the District Court. It found, inter alia , that the District Court had relied on evidence that had been precluded. On 17 February 1997, after hearings on that date and 10 January 1997, the District Court convicted the applicant again, qualifying the incriminated behaviour this time as an insult ( Beleidigung ). On 8 January 1998, following the applicant’s appeal, the St. Pölten Court of Appeal quashed the sentence again and referred the case back to the District Court. The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had failed to take evidence concerning the applicant’s intentions ( subjektive Tatseite ).   On 18 May 1998 the District Court again convicted the applicant of insult. On 25   January   1999 the St. Pölten Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on 27 April 1999.   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   THE LAW     The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 3   June 1994 and ended on 27 April 1999 with the St. Pölten Court of Appeal’s decision. They therefore lasted nearly four years and eleven months. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.     The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law 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 Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.         S. Dollé                 J.-P.Costa Registrar                 President