CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                             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)