CASE OF LAGLER v. AUSTRIA (No. 1)



      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

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy