In the case of Ochsenreiter v. Austria (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 42/1995/548/634. 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 June and
5 September 1995, and composed of the following judges:
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
Mr F. Matscher,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Republic of
Austria lodged with the Court on 9 May 1995 by an Austrian national,
Mr Wolfgang Ochsenreiter, 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 11 January 1995
on the application (no. 16036/90) lodged with the Commission by
Mr Ochsenreiter on 5 January 1990;
Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had access
to a court having full jurisdiction or a fair and public hearing, and
of the length of proceedings in the administrative courts, to which he
was a party, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention, under which "In the determination of his civil rights
and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";
Whereas on 7 April 1994 the Commission declared admissible
only the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in issue;
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that he sought a decision by the Court on account of, inter
alia, the alleged structural deficiencies of the judicial protection
afforded under Austrian administrative law;
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, and as it determines this issue in the light of
the circumstances of each case; 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
13 September 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy