The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention");
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention
relating to the application lodged by Mr Leo Zand against Austria
(No. 7360/76);
Whereas on 10 January 1979 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention
has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
Convention;
Whereas in his application introduced on 19 December 1975, the
applicant complained that the Salzburg Labour Court, which heard his
case in a labour dispute with his former employers, was not "an
independent tribunal established by law" as required by Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention and that civil rights and
obligations arising in his case were not determined within a
reasonable time;
Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application
admissible on 16 May 1977, considered in its report adopted on
12 October 1978 whether the institutional guarantees in Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention applied to the Salzburg
Labour Court being a court of first instance, whether this court was
"established by law" and "independent" within the meaning of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, and whether the
applicant's case was heard within a "reasonable time";
Whereas the Commission in its report expressed unanimously the opinion
that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the
Convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention;
Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.