AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20400/92
by Johannes EBERL
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber)
sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being
present:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 May 1992
by Johannes Eberl against Austria and registered on 30 July 1992
under file No. 20400/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the
respondent Government on 12 February 1993 and the observations
in reply submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
parties, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant, born in 1968, is an Austrian national and
resident at Fügen in Tyrol.
On 12 October 1987 the applicant instituted proceedings
before the Zell am Ziller District Court (Bezirksgericht) against
his uncle. He claimed primarily that the defendant had to vacate
a cottage which the applicant had inherited from his mother, or,
in the alternative, that the contract of lease between the
applicant's deceased mother and the defendant be declared null
and void and the defendant vacate the cottage concerned.
On 11 April 1988 the Zell am Ziller District Court dismissed
the applicant's action. The District Court considered that the
applicant's mother had validly concluded a contract of lease with
the defendant for a term of thirty years which, in accordance
with S. 1116 a of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches
Gesetzbuch) had not terminated upon his mother's death. The
judgment was served on 28 April 1988.
On 25 May 1988 the applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung)
with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht). The defendant
filed his submissions in reply on 7 September 1988. On 12 October
1988 the files were forwarded to another chamber of the Innsbruck
Regional Court for consultation in connection with a further
civil suit brought by the applicant against his uncle. The files
were returned on 6 July 1989.
On 6 September 1989 the Innsbruck Regional Court dismissed
the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on 8 January
1990.
On 5 February 1990 the applicant filed an appeal on points
of law (Revision) with the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster
Gerichtshof). The defendant made submissions on 7 March 1990.
On 12 December 1991 the Supreme Court dismissed the
applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision was served on
2 March 1992.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention about the length of the appeal proceedings before the
Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 15 May 1992 and registered
on 30 July 1992.
On 14 October 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government for observations on the
admissibility and merits.
On 12 February 1993 the Government submitted their
observations. The observations in reply by the applicant were
submitted on 1 March 1993.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention that the appeal proceedings before the
Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court lasted
unreasonably long.
The Government argue that the length of the proceedings was
reasonable. In particular, the facts underlying the proceedings
in question were not simple from a legal point of view. Moreover,
the files were needed for a considerable time in the context of
another set of proceedings.
As regards the relevant period to be considered under
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), the Commission notes that the
applicant lodged his action with the Zell am Ziller District
Court on 12 October 1987. His appeal with the Innsbruck Regional
Court dated 25 May 1988. The proceedings ended on 2 March 1992
when the Supreme Court's judgment of 12 December 1991 was served
upon the applicant. The appeal proceedings the applicant
complains of thus lasted about three years, nine months and one
week.
The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the case-
law of the Convention organs and in the light of the
circumstances of the case, which in this instance call for an
overall assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cesarini judgment of 12
October 1992, Series A no. 245-B, p. 17, para. 26).
The Commission notes that the applicant's case related to
the vacation of a cottage. While the first instance proceedings
before the Zell am Ziller District Court terminated within six
months, there were delays in the course of the appeal proceedings
before the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Supreme Court. These
appeal proceedings lasted more than one year, seven months and
two weeks, and more than two years and three weeks, respectively.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that these delays do
not appear substantial enough for the total length of the appeal
proceedings to be regarded as excessive.
Consequently, there is no appearance of a violation of the
applicant's right to a hearing within a "reasonable time", as
guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First
Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy