FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 37794/07, 11568/08, 23036/08, 23044/08, 23047/08, 23053/08, 23054/08 and 48865/08
Wilhelm JENIK
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 November 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 13 August 2007, 21 February 2008, 17 April 2008 and 6 October 2008 respectively
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant Mr Wilhelm Jenik, is an Austrian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Vienna. He is represented by Mr H. Pochieser, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ambassador Helmut Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant is unemployed and has been receiving welfare benefits for himself and his three children for approximately ten years. Under the Vienna Welfare Act (Wiener Sozialhilfegesetz), he is entitled to monthly payments and, in addition, to certain extra allowances and non-cash benefits as specified by law and upon specific request.
1. Application no. 37794/07
(a) The applicant’s request of 4 May 2004
4. On 4 May 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority, seeking temporary pecuniary assistance (Geldaushilfe) in addition to the benefits already received, without specifying an amount. By an oral decision of the same day the Vienna Municipal Authority granted him 915.85 euros (EUR).
5. On 8 June 2004 the Vienna Municipal Authority, at the applicant’s request, provided him with a written copy of the above oral decision. The applicant, who was not satisfied with the amount granted, appealed on 29 June 2004.
6. On 15 November 2004 the Vienna Regional Government dismissed the applicant’s appeal and lowered the amount to EUR 901.20.
7. On 3 October 2005 the applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court and asked for an oral hearing. He argued that the Vienna Regional Government’s decision had been unlawful, in that the Regional Government had not been competent to take the impugned decision, its decision was not sufficiently reasoned and it had not applied the provisions of the Vienna Social Welfare Act correctly. The authorities should have granted him a rent allowance equivalent to the full amount of rent paid by him, because rents were high in Vienna and they had not objected to the applicant moving to a bigger apartment with his children.
8. On 15 December 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that the Vienna Regional Government had been competent to take the impugned decision and had decided properly on the applicant’s request, as was apparent from the operative part of its decision. In the circumstances of the case it had been inevitable that the Vienna Regional Government would also refer in its reasoning to various other requests filed by the applicant, but this did not render the decision unclear.
9. In so far as the applicant had complained that he should have been entitled to full reimbursement of the rent paid by him, the Administrative Court found that, in accordance with the law, a rent allowance was linked to the specific size of an apartment, with a fixed maximum amount for certain sizes. Only in very special circumstances could a higher amount be granted. The applicant had, however, failed throughout the proceedings to give any specific reasons, corroborated by evidence, as to why he should receive a higher rent allowance. The mere indication that rents in Vienna were high was not a sufficient argument within the meaning of the Social Welfare Act. With regard to the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, the Administrative Court found that the present case concerned only questions of law which, in line with the Court’s case-law, did not necessitate a hearing, and accordingly dismissed the request.
(b) The applicant’s request of 15 June 2004.
10. On 15 June 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority, seeking an additional allowance from June 2004 onwards, without specifying an amount.
11. On 23 July 2004 the Vienna Municipal Authority granted his request, awarding him EUR 1,422.80. On 29 July 2004 the applicant, who was not satisfied with the amount granted, appealed.
12. On 23 November 2004 the Vienna Regional Government granted the applicant’s appeal and raised the amount to EUR 2,115.30.
13. On 3 October 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against this decision and requested an oral hearing. He submitted the same arguments as in his complaint to the Administrative Court concerning his request of 4 May 2004.
14. On 15 December 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and his request for an oral hearing for the same reasons as in its decision of the same day relating to the applicant’s request of 4 May 2004.
2. Application no. 11568/08
(a) The applicant’s request of 30 June 1998
15. On 30 June 1998 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority seeking an additional allowance from May 1998 onwards, reimbursement of the costs incurred for the repair of his washing machine and the payment of several electricity, gas and rent bills; this was granted by several decisions of the Vienna Municipal Authority, including those of 6 July 1998, 27 August 1998 and 15 December 1998.
16. On 4 July 2001 the Vienna Regional Government rejected the applicant’s request to transfer jurisdiction to the superior authority, on the ground that the Vienna Municipal Authority and the Regional Government itself had already decided on the matter and had granted the requested benefits.
17. On 6 September 2001 the applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court, together with an application alleging a breach of the administrative authorities’ duty to decide; he also requested legal aid and asked the court to hold a public hearing.
18. On 2 May 2002 the Administrative Court ordered the applicant to provide further information about his complaint. The applicant complied on 18 June 2002.
19. On 25 July 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint; this decision was served on his counsel on 21 August 2007. The Administrative Court listed in detail the decisions taken by the Municipal Authority and the Regional Government between 24 April 1998 and 27 August 1998 in response to the numerous requests lodged by the applicant during this period, from which the Regional Government had concluded that the applicant’s request of 30 June 1998 had been decided upon. They had, therefore, taken proper decisions, satisfying all the statutory requirements. In such a situation the applicant could not merely claim that one of his requests had not been decided upon, but had to substantiate his allegations by referring to details. Since he had not done so, the Regional Government had acted correctly in dismissing his request for transfer of jurisdiction. With regard to the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, the Administrative Court found that the present case only concerned questions of law which, in line with the Court’s case-law, did not necessitate the holding of a hearing and therefore dismissed the request.
(b) The applicant’s request of 8 February 2001
20. On 8 February 2001 the applicant filed a request for additional allowances for cultural and education matters.
21. On 1 March 2001 the Vienna Municipal Authority dismissed the applicant’s request of 8 February 2001.
22. On 4 May 2001 the Vienna Regional Government dismissed his appeal against this decision.
23. On 20 June 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government’s decision and requested legal aid.
24. On 3 August 2007 the Administrative Court remitted the complaint to the applicant in order for procedural defects to be remedied. At the same time it dismissed the request for legal aid, finding that, in view of its case‑law, the complaint had no prospect of success. In view of the refusal of legal aid the applicant did not pursue the proceedings.
3. Application no. 23036/08
25. On 12 December 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority, seeking an additional allowance, amounting to EUR 2000 for heating and electricity.
26. On 24 January 2001 the Vienna Municipal Authority dismissed his request, and on 20 June 2001 the Vienna Regional Government dismissed his appeal.
27. Having been granted legal aid, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against that decision on 17 June 2002.
28. On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
4. Application no. 23044/08
29. On 1 March 2001 the applicant filed a request for an additional allowance for heating and electricity, amounting to EUR 63.80.
30. On 8 March 2001 the Vienna Municipal Authority dismissed his request, and, on 12 September 2001, the Vienna Regional Government dismissed his appeal.
31. Having been granted legal aid, the applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court on 17 July 2002.
32. On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
5. Application no. 23047/08
33. On 2 February 2001 the applicant filed a request for an additional allowance for heating and electricity, amounting to EUR 65.40 per month.
34. On 1 March 2001 the Vienna Municipal Authority dismissed his request, and, on 19 September 2001, the Vienna Regional Government dismissed his appeal.
35. On 14 December 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid, considering that, in view of its case-law, the complaint had no prospect of success.
36. On 7 June 2002, having been granted legal aid, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government’s decision.
37. On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 October 2007.
6. Application no. 23053/08
38. On 12 June 1997 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority, seeking an additional allowance for the period from June until July 1997.
39. On 23 May 2001 the Vienna Regional Government granted the applicant’s request of 20 February 2001 to transfer jurisdiction to the superior authority on the ground of the Vienna Municipal Authority’s failure to decide; being competent to decide the matter itself, it dismissed the applicant’s request by a decision of the same day.
40. On 19 June 2002, having been granted legal aid, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against this decision and asked the court to hold a public hearing. He argued that the authority had incorrectly applied the law and had not properly reasoned its decision, and that the facts of the case needed to be supplemented, since the calculation of his resources had taken into account alimony payments for his son W. from his former wife which he had not actually received. This point therefore needed to be further developed.
41. On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint without having held a hearing. The Administrative Court found that the authority had properly reasoned its decision and had applied correctly the relevant provisions of the Vienna Social Welfare Act. With regard to the applicant’s argument that the authority should not have taken account of alimony payments from his former wife for his son W., the Administrative Court found that, even if it accepted the applicant’s position, namely that he had not received payments to which he had been entitled and that they should not therefore be taken into account when assessing his income, that income was still above the statutory limit (Richtsatz), so that he was not entitled to an additional allowance. Lastly, referring to the Court’s case-law, the Administrative Court found that in the present case it had only to deal with questions of law which could adequately be resolved on the basis of the case file and the parties’ written observations, and therefore dismissed the request for a hearing.
7. Application no. 23054/08
42. On 20 February 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Vienna Municipal Authority, seeking an additional allowance for heating costs from October 1999 onwards.
43. On 8 February 2001 the Vienna Regional Government granted the applicant’s request of 7 September 2000 to transfer jurisdiction to the superior authority on account of the Vienna Municipal Authority’s failure to decide, and at the same time granted an additional allowance amounting to 3,438 Austrian shillings (ATS - EUR 250).
44. On 9 May 2001, having been granted legal aid, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against that decision.
On 27 September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 October 2007.
8. Application no. 48865/08
45. On 11 and 23 November 2004 the applicant filed requests for reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the purchase of a Christmas tree (EUR 35) and an Advent wreath (Adventskranz – EUR 7.90).
46. On 15 December 2004 the Vienna Municipal Authority dismissed these requests, finding that as this kind of expense was already covered by the monthly payment received by the applicant, additional grants could not be made.
47. On 17 February 2005 the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision, but corrected the first instance’s decision to the effect that the applicant’s requests were rejected. It did not hold a hearing.
48. On 27 September 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid of 5 October 2005, finding that, in view of its case-law on the matter, the complaint had no prospect of success.
49. On 5 August 2005 the Administrative Court granted the applicant legal aid.
50. On 21 October 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court; on 15 November 2005 he filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
51. On 8 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint, as did the Administrative Court on 2 July 2008.
COMPLAINTS
52. The applicant complained in particular that the length of the proceedings on his request for additional social welfare benefits had been excessive and invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
53. He further complained under Article 6 about the lack of a public hearing by a tribunal within the meaning of this provision, that the Administrative Court’s decisions were not pronounced publicly and that that court had not taken a decision within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Under Article 3 he complained that the way in which the Austrian courts and authorities had conducted the proceedings and reasoned their respective decisions amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 he complained that the Austrian authorities’ decisions, insofar as they dismissed his requests, constituted an infringement of his property rights. Relying on Article 9 of the Convention he complained that because of the refusal of his request for additional social welfare benefits of 23 November 2004, he had not been in a position to buy a Christmas tree (application no. 48865/08). Before the Court he claimed a total of EUR 48,180 in just satisfaction.
THE LAW
54. Given that these eight applications concern similar facts and raise essentially identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them (see Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
55. The applicant’s complaints relate in the first place to the length of the proceedings on his request for additional social welfare benefits.
56. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
He further alleged a violation of Article 13, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
57. The Government submitted that in their view applications nos. 23047/08, 23054/08 and 11568/08 (in respect of the applicant’s request of 30 June 1998) had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
58. This was disputed by the applicant, who submitted that he had respected the time-limit for the introduction of an application in all cases.
59. The Government submitted further that the applicant, who did not pursue any gainful occupation and received social welfare benefits – in particular regular monthly emergency relief payments and a number of specific extra allowances and non-cash benefits since the year 2000 – had filed numerous requests for further benefits and had frequently filed complaints with the Administrative Court. While the proceedings in the applications at issue were not complex, their length was essentially caused by the overburdening of the Administrative Court to which the numerous complaints by the applicant had contributed. Moreover, given the fact that the applicant had received during the whole period regular welfare benefits and a number of additional payments, these proceedings were not of great importance to him.
60. The Court observes that in some of the applications at issue the amounts claimed by the applicant were not significant (no. 23044/08 EUR 63.80 as allowance for heating costs, no. 23047/08 EUR 65.40 as additional allowance for electricity and no. 48865/08 EUR 42,90 for a Christmas tree and an Advent wreath) and that in some cases the dispute concerned essentially procedural questions, namely whether the competent authority had complied with its duty to issue a formal written decision (no. 11568/08 and no. 23053/08) which may raise the question whether the complaints are acceptable under Article 35 of the Convention, as amended by Protocol No. 14. However, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine this question as it considers that the applications are in any event inadmissible. For the same reason the Court does not find it necessary to examine the issue of compliance with the six months rule as raised by the Government.
61. In its decision in the case of Bock v. Germany ((dec.), no. 22051/07, 19 January 2010) the Court dismissed an application for abuse of the right of individual application on the following grounds:
“The Court ... had regard to the disproportion between the triviality of the facts, namely the pettiness of the amount involved and the fact that the proceedings concerned a dietary supplement, not a pharmaceutical product, and the extensive use of court proceedings – including the appeal to an international court – against the background of that Court’s overload and the fact that a large number of applications raising serious issues on human rights are pending. Furthermore, the Court observes that proceedings as the one at issue in the instant case also contribute to the congestion of the courts at the domestic level and thus to one of the causes for excessive length of court proceedings. In the examination of the case the Court further took into consideration the applicant’s comfortable financial situation as a government official and the fact that there was no question of principle involved as evidenced by the lack of an appeal after the first instance dismissal of the applicant’s claim. Finally, it also considered the nature and scope of the alleged Convention violation. In this respect the Court notes, that the issue of excessive length of court proceedings has been dealt with by the Court in numerous cases – in particular also against the respondent Government – in which the principles of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 have been laid down ...”
62. In the case of Dudek the Court found that the approach chosen in the Bock decision quoted above was still applicable even after the entry into force of the new admissibility requirement in 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Dudek, cited above).
63. The Court therefore has to examine whether also in the present case there was a reasonable proportion between the facts of the case, in particular whether the present applications concern proceedings of minor importance, and the extensive use of court proceedings by the applicant. In doing so, the Court will also be mindful of its overload and the fact that a large number of applications raising serious issues on human rights are pending before it.
64. Given the applicant’s financial situation, being unemployed and receiving social welfare benefits – in particular regular monthly emergency relief payments, family allowance for his children and a number of specific extra allowances and non-cash benefits since the year 2000 – the Court acknowledges that, irrespective of the amounts involved, receiving additional allowances which were the subject matter of most of the present applications, was of importance to the applicant. In this respect the Court observes that in some of the applications the competent welfare authorities had taken up the applicant’s requests and had granted him, at least partially, the additional benefits requested (see no. 37794/07 and no. 23054/08).
65. On the other hand, the Court observes that in the domestic proceedings the applicant filed numerous requests and appeals to the social welfare authorities and complaints to the highest Austrian courts, to the extent that on one occasion it remained unclear which of his numerous requests had actually been decided upon by the competent authority (see no. 11568/08). Moreover these proceedings did not only concern different kinds of social welfare benefits in which the applicant repeatedly brought the same or similar questions before the Administrative Court, but some of them concerned merely procedural issues, namely whether the competent authority had complied with its duty to issue a formal written decision (no. 11568/08 and no. 23053/08). Moreover, in all the cases which the applicant had introduced before the Administrative Court against the social welfare authorities, the Administrative Court found that the decisions taken by them had been correct and dismissed the applicant’s complaints. Lastly, the applicant’s requests for just satisfaction, in particular in regard to pecuniary damage, appear to be completely out of proportion to the small sums at issue in the impugned domestic proceedings.
66. As regards the domestic proceedings, the Court does not see any important questions of principle involved in the various proceedings instituted by the applicant for additional social welfare benefits. The applicant did not establish that they had been linked to structural and serious problems in the area of social welfare.
67. The Court lastly considers that the issue of excessive length of court proceedings has been dealt with by the Court in numerous cases – also against the respondent Government – in which the principles of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been laid down, and that the Court has already specified the obligation which arises under the Convention for the respondent Government with regard to the lack of an effective remedy against excessively long court proceedings (see Stempfer v. Austria, no. 18294/03, § 48, 26 July 2007; Schutte v. Austria, no. 18015/03, § 38, 26 July 2007; Vitzthum v. Austria, no. 8140/04, § 31, 26 July 2007, and Hauser-Spor v. Austria, no. 37301/03, § 40, 7 December 2006).
68. The Court therefore concludes that in the present case there was no reasonable proportion between the facts of the case and the extensive use of court proceedings by the applicant. Accordingly, it is appropriate to reject the applications as a whole as an abuse of the right of individual application pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
André WampachNina Vajić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy