CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 septembre 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. 19783/92                       by A.S.                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 September 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL            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 25 November 1991 by A.S. against Austria and registered on 30 March 1992 under file No. 19783/92;         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 1939.   He lives in Vienna.         On 7 March 1990 the Klagenfurt District Court (Bezirksgericht) made an interlocutory injunction against the applicant providing for monthly payments to his wife, from whom he was separated.   On 26 May 1991 the applicant requested a reduction in the maintenance payments on the ground that his monthly income had fallen because he was now unemployed.   In accordance with procedural instructions received from the court, on 6 June 1991 the applicant made a formal application (Oppositionsklage) under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung) for termination of the payments as the underlying claim no longer subsisted.   On 5 July 1991 the applicant, who had also applied for legal aid, was invited to submit a declaration of means. He received the invitation on 1 August 1991 and submitted a declaration of means on the same day.   Legal aid was granted on 8 November 1991.         Since the grant of legal aid, a lawyer was appointed by the Bar Association (Rechtsanwaltskammer) on 28 November 1991 and on 12 December 1991 the applicant informed the court that he would not be able to attend a hearing in Klagenfurt for financial reasons, but otherwise the case has not progressed.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant alleges violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention by virtue of the length of time it has taken to process his application for termination of the maintenance payments he is required to make.   He points out that since June 1991 he has been unemployed and, if he were not able to live with his parents, he would be unable to survive.       THE LAW         The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings in which he has applied under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act for termination of maintenance payments he is required to make to his wife under an interlocutory injunction.   He alleges violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         The Commission is not required to determine whether the applicant's application to the Austrian courts determined his civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention as, even if it did, the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.         The Commission notes that no procedural steps have been taken in the case since legal aid was granted to the applicant and a lawyer was appointed in November 1991.   The Commission also notes that there is no indication that the applicant has made any request to the Austrian courts to proceed with the case.         Having regard to the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question of "reasonable time" within Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention - 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, the Commission finds that the length of the proceedings to date does not exceed the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons the Commission unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber           (M. de SALVIA)                          (J.A. FROWEIN)