CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 24 avril 1996

.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 }        In the case of Lagler v. Austria (no. 1) (1),         The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 4/1996/623/806.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. 2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________         Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 29 March 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Chairman,       Mr F. Matscher,       Mr B. Walsh,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 17 January 1996 by an Austrian national, Mr Gert Lagler, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;         Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;         Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;         Having regard to the Commission's report of 18 October 1995 on the application (no. 16906/90) lodged with the Commission by Mr Lagler on 3 July 1990;         Whereas the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before an Austrian court, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (right of everyone to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 6 para. 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him) of the Convention;         Whereas on 5 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in issue, the other complaints not having been submitted to it by the applicant;         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, (a) requested the Court to hold that there had been a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d) of the Convention and to award him just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), namely compensation for all the damage he had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs incurred before the Convention institutions, and (b) stated that he sought a decision by the Court on account of, inter alia, the exceptional length of the proceedings and the consequences for the outcome of the trial of the fact that no witnesses for the defence were heard;         Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.     Finds that         (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the            interpretation or application of the Convention, as the            Court has already established case-law on the "reasonable            time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the            Convention, while consideration of the other complaints            relating to Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (art. 6-1,            art. 6-3-d) of the Convention lies outside the Court's            jurisdiction, as the applicant raised them for the first            time in his application to the Court; and         (b)   the case does not, for any other reason, warrant            consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding            that there has been a breach of the Convention, the            Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award            the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any            proposals made by the Commission;   2.     Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be       considered by the Court.         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 24 April 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Louis-Edmond PETTITI       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar