CASE OF SCHOTTENBERGER v. AUSTRIA



      In the case of Schottenberger 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 15/1996/634/818.  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 and 23 April 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 13 February 1996 by an Austrian national,

Mr Karl Schottenberger, 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. 20223/92) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Schottenberger on 29 April 1992;

      Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings

before Austrian administrative authorities and the Austrian

Administrative Court, 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal

...";

      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, (i) the alleged lack of established case-law concerning the

applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) to a social security

dispute relating to both the payment of contributions and entitlement

to social benefits, and (ii) the considerable pecuniary and

non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the length of the proceedings

in issue;

      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 "civil"

           nature, for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

           the Convention, of the right to a retirement pension, the

           main subject-matter of the case in question, and the

           "reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1

           (art. 6-1) ; 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