THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 35435/97
by Hubert PUCHER and Others
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 8 February 2000 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ.-P. Costa,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 30 August 1996 by Huber PUCHER and Others against Austria and registered on 25 March 1997 under file no. 35435/97;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Hubert Pucher, born in 1941, Ernestine Molzbichler, born in 1932, Romana Brandner, born in 1936, Gerhard Pucher, born in 1945, and Maria Glanzer, born in 1943, are all Austrian nationals. They are living in Spittal/Drau, Gladbach and Möllbrücke respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr H. Walther, a lawyer practising in Klagenfurt.
A.Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants and their brother are all children of a Carinthian farmer who died on 3 September 1993. After the death of the applicants’ father, inheritance proceedings commenced on 10 December 1993 when their conditional declaration accepting the inheritance (bedingte Erbserklärung) was registered by the Spittal/Drau District Court (Bezirksgericht).
On 30 December 1993, 17 May and 27 June 1994 hearings were held at the competent notary’s office. As the applicants and their brother were unable to agree on an arrangement, the proceedings were transferred to the District Court which held hearings on 23 October 1995, 20 November 1995 and 15 January 1996. On 15 January 1996 the court noted that the applicants and their brother had reached an agreement concerning the estate’s land and declared the applicants’ brother to be the principal heir (Anerbe). The latter appealed against this decision arguing, in particular, that there had been no agreement. On 28 February 1996 the Klagenfurt Regional Court (Landesgericht) granted his appeal and referred the case back to the District Court.
The District Court continued the proceedings and took several expert opinions on the question whether the applicants’ brother was able to be the principal heir. Experts were appointed on 12 July, 9 September, 21 October 1996 and 28 May 1997. On 17 June 1997 the District Court decided again that the applicant’s brother was the principal heir. On 24 July 1997 the Klagenfurt Regional Court granted the applicants’ appeal and referred the case back to the District Court.
On 6 August 1997 the District Court decided to take the expert opinion of the Carinthian Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry (Kammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) on the question whether the estate called “Stofflbauerhube” fulfilled the conditions of a hereditary farm (Erbhof), within the meaning of the Carinthian Hereditary Farms Act (Kärntner Erbhöfegesetz). On 18 August 1997 the District Court found that the “Stofflbauerhube” was a hereditary farm.
On 5 November 1997 the District Court held another hearing during which the applicants and their brother agreed on a settlement regulating the inheritance (Erbübereinkommen). The file was transferred to the notary and, at a hearing held on 14 April 1998, the applicants and their brother agreed on a family arrangement regulating the division of the whole of the estate (Erbteilungsübereinkommen).
On 6 May 1998 the District Court issued the certificate putting the statutory heir in possession of the estate (Einantwortungsurkunde). Subsequently, on an unspecified date between September and mid-December 1999, the inheritance settlement was entered in the land register (Grundbuch).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the length and unfairness of the proceedings. They also invoke Article 1 of Protocol No 1.
THE LAW
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the length and unfairness of the proceedings. They also invoke Article 1 Protocol No 1 to the Convention.
Article 6, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time ...”
Article 1 Protocol No 1 guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
1.As to the applicants’ complaint about the length of the proceedings the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.
2.As to the remaining complaints, the Court finds them wholly unsubstantiated and concludes that the present case does not disclose any appearance of unfairness, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, or any unjustified interference with property rights, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No 1.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the applicants’ complaint about the length of the proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
S. DolléN. Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy