CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 décembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 13 December 1999 G.S. v. Austria - 26297/95 Judgment 21.12.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Granting of licence to run pharmacy: Article 6 applicable Reasonable time Length of administrative proceedings: violation Facts : In June 1990 the applicant appealed to the Federal Ministry for Health, Sports and Consumer Protection against the refusal of the Provincial Governor to grant him a licence to run a pharmacy.   In April 1991 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court against the administration's failure to decide within the statutory time-limit. The Ministry then refused his appeal and the applicant lodged a further appeal to the Administrative Court in July 1991. In December 1995 he withdrew his appeal, after reaching an agreement with another pharmacist. Law : Article 6 § 1 - The Court saw no reason to disagree with the Commission's conclusion that Article 6 applied, since the private law aspects of the profession of pharmacist in Austria outweighed the public law features. The proceedings had taken more than 5 years 5 months, of which more than 4 years 4 months were before the Administrative Court, including a period of total inactivity of 3½ years. Although the proceedings were of some complexity, this argument had little weight as regards the proceedings before the Administrative Court, which did not examine the merits. Moreover, while the State had taken certain measures to reduce the court's workload, with effect from 1991, the applicant's case remained pending, without a decision on the merits, until the end of 1995. No delays were attributable to the applicant, and the Court could not subscribe to the Government's argument that the matter was of little significance to him after he obtained a licence to run a pharmacy elsewhere. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 - The Court could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had they been terminated within a reasonable time.   It awarded the applicant the full amount of his claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, namely 15,000 schillings (ATS).   It also made an award in respect of costs.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes