AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 17595/90
by J.R.
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:
MM. E. BUSUTTIL, Acting President of the First Chamber
F. ERMACORA
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 10 April 1990 by
J.R. against Austria and registered on under file No. 17595/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1921. He lives in
Mehrnbach in Upper Austria.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and apparent
from the documents submitted by him, may be summarised as follows.
From 1963 until 1984 the applicant and his former wife were
involved in several disputes concerning their neighbours and various
dealings with credit institutions which were intended to resolve
financial problems. In March 1984 the applicant's marriage was
dissolved; in May 1984 the applicant's former wife requested division
of certain matrimonial property. After proceedings before the Ried
District Court (Bezirksgericht, 9 November 1984) and the Ried Regional
Court (Kreisgericht, 29 January and 7 May 1985), the Supreme Court
(Oberster Gerichtshof) on 13 June 1985 quashed the decision of 7 May
1985 and remitted the question of an interim injunction (decision of
9 November 1984) to the Ried Regional Court.
On 13 May 1986 the Ried Regional Court rejected a challenge by
the applicant to the presiding judge at the Ried District Court.
On 17 February 1987 the Ried Regional Court quashed a decision
of the Ried District Court of 5 September 1986. It remitted the case
to the District Court. The applicant's former wife appealed to the
Supreme Court which, on 19 May 1988, refused the appeal.
On 22 February 1989 the Ried District Court took a decision on
the merits of the case. The applicant's appeal to the Ried Regional
Court was rejected on 9 May 1989. The applicant further appealed to
the Supreme Court which, on 18 January 1990, rejected part and declared
inadmissible the rest of the appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about a judicial conspiracy which
stretches back to 1963 and which aims to ruin him. He also complains
of the length and fairness of the various proceedings in which he has
been involved. The applicant does not refer to any specific provision
of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings for
division of matrimonial property brought by his former wife. Article
6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant,
as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone
is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law. ..."
The Commission notes that the applicant's former wife introduced
the proceedings in May 1984 and that the final decision in the case
appears to be the decision of the Supreme Court of 18 January 1990,
received by the applicant on 2 April 1990.
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine whether there has been a violation of this provision
as regards the length of the proceedings without the observations of
both parties.
The Commission therefore adjourns this part of the application.
2. The Commission has also examined the applicant's remaining
complaints as submitted. However, insofar as these matters are within
the Commission's competence and to the extent that the allegations made
have been substantiated, the Commission does not find that a violation
of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention has been
established.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in
accordance with Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO ADJOURN EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINT
under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention as to the
length of the proceedings brought by the applicant's
former wife for division of matrimonial property and
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber
(M. de SALVIA) (E. BUSUTTIL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy