THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38536/97
by Josef SCHREDER
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 November 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 January 1997 and registered on 7 November 1997,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian national, born in 1956, residing in Nussdorf-Debant. He was a shareholder in a limited liability company, but assigned his shares to another shareholder in 1985. Subsequently, the company went bankrupt.
The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.
On 7 April 1986 a bank which had extended credit to the company filed an action against the applicant with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) requesting repayment because of his joint and several liability for the credit.
On 29 April 1986 the first hearing was held and on 17 July 1986 the second. On 1 August 1986 the file was transmitted to the Lienz District Court (Bezirksgericht) to hear two witnesses and the defendant. On 18 November 1986 the Lienz District Court returned the file to the Innsbruck District Court. On 25 November 1986 the file was transmitted to the Salzburg District Court to hear witnesses. The file was returned on 12 May 1987. On 6 October 1987 a hearing was held. On 18 November 1987 the court appointed a banking expert. His opinion was delivered on 23 September 1988. On 19 January 1989 another hearing was held.
On 20 February 1989 the Regional Court granted the application having regard to the submissions of the parties, witnesses and experts, to documentary evidence and to the case files of the bankruptcy proceedings. In these and the subsequent proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel.
On 29 March 1989 the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained, inter alia, that his motion for a rendering of accounts (Rechnungslegung) had not been granted. On 25 August 1989 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the decision and referred the case back to the Regional Court.
On 12 February 1996 the Innsbruck Regional Court, after having supplemented the proceedings, again granted the bank’s claim. On 3 April 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision and again complained that his motion for a rendering of accounts had not been granted.
On 12 July 1996 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly dismissed the applicant’s appeal. As regards the rendering of accounts, the court found that sufficient information about the accounts had been disclosed in an expert opinion and the testimony of a witness. Therefore, the Regional Court had rightly denied the applicant’s motion.
On 30 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on 18 February 1997.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a violation of his property rights due to the length of the proceedings.
He further complains under Article 6 § 1 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. It appears that this complaint relates to the Austrian court’s refusal concerning the rendering of accounts.
THE LAW
1. The applicant, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complains about the length of the proceedings, which began on 7 April 1986 and ended on 18 February 1997. They therefore lasted more than ten years and ten months.
According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
2. As to the complaint about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, the Court recalls that the admissibility of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, whereas it is the Court’s task to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was submitted, were fair (Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 21, § 66). In the present case there is no indication that the applicant, represented by counsel, could not duly put forward his arguments or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case, the applicant’s complaint relating to the length of the proceedings;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy