CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s17007D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:1pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCB95FA7E { width:189.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION           CASE OF MAINSTREET-AUTOMATEN GMBH AND OTHERS v.   AUSTRIA (Application no. 72662/14 and 3 others - see appended list )               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   20 September 2018           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Mainstreet-Automaten GmbH and others v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Austria lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Austrian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In application no.   72662/14, the applicant company also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...” 7.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.     In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010 and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED COMPLAINTS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In application no.   72662/14, the applicant company submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Rambauske, §§ 27-28, cited above. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Rambauske , §§   16   and   32, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, and (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     72662/14 10/11/2014 Mainstreet-Automaten GmbH   Duschek Ferdinand Wien 02/11/2011   pending   More than 6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction     Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings before Administrative Court 1,000 -     10037/15 16/02/2015 Georg Thum 04/02/1955 Thum Weinreich Schwarz Chyba Reiter Rechtsanwälte OG St. Poelten 11/02/2008   11/09/2014   6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction           6,000 960     56653/15 13/11/2015 Elisabeth Schiefer 03/08/1929 Brandstetter Georg WIEN 11/12/2008   22/05/2015   6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 12 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction       1,000 -     54978/16 12/09/2016 Ingo Merwald 23/07/1937 Riedl Martin Wien 19/02/2003   pending   More than 15 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction       18,000 -   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.