AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20676/92
by Ludwig HALLER
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
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 11 September 1992
by Ludwig HALLER against Austria and registered under file
No. 20676/92;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
28 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 4 May 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He is represented before
the Commission by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in
Bregenz.
The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal
proceedings of unlawfully putting out bait to attract game, contrary
to local hunting legislation. A penal order was issued on
15 February 1990 by the Bregenz District Authority by which the
applicant was fined a total of AS 11,000.00, with 336 hours' detention
in default.
The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government
was rejected on 15 November 1990.
On 11 June 1991 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's
constitutional complaint, and on 17 February 1992 the Administrative
Court dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention
in that his conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was not
accompanied by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular that
the Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The Government's observations were submitted on 28 February 1995
and the applicant's observations in reply on 4 May 1995.
THE LAW
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention. The Government consider that the case does not disclose
a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6).
The Commission has had regard to the facts of the present case,
to the parties' observations, and to the case-law of the European Court
of Human Rights. It finds that the case raises questions under the
Convention which cannot at this stage be rejected as being manifestly
ill-founded, and which require to be determined on the merits. No
other ground of inadmissibility has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
merits of the case.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy