CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 avril 1994

.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. 18624/91                     by Gert LAGLER                     against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 6 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   A. WEITZEL, President                C.L. ROZAKIS                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 26 July 1991 by Gert Lagler against Austria and registered on 2 August 1991 under file No. 18624/91;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to :     -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of    the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government      on 25 August 1992 and the observations in reply      submitted by the applicant on 22 November 1992;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:         THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1949.   He lives in Vienna.        On 10 July 1986 the applicant issued proceedings out of the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) in his own name and in the name of four companies, of three of which he was both sole shareholder and general manager (Geschäftsführer), against thirty-six named defendants in connection with the failure of the applicant's business enterprises.   On 6 February 1988 the court inspected the file in the criminal proceedings against the applicant which formed the background to the case.   On 8 February 1988 the court decided to adjourn the proceedings until the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known.   The applicant did not appeal against that decision.   The criminal proceedings are still pending.        On 31 May 1988 the court rejected the suit so far as it was brought by an unrepresented company, even though the court had requested that a lawyer be appointed.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings. He also initially alleged that the proceedings were unfair, again invoking Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 26 July 1991 and registered on 2 August 1991.        On 19 February 1992 the Commission examined the question of admissibility of the application and decided to bring to the notice of the respondent Government and to request written observations on the admissibility and merits of the question concerning the length of proceedings involving the applicant.        On the same date the Commission also decided to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.        After an extension of the time-limit, the Government submitted their observations on 25 August 1992 and the applicant submitted his observations in reply, after an extension of the time-limit, on 22 November 1992.   On 12 October 1992 the Government submitted a translation of their observations.     THE LAW        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings.   In his observations in reply to the observations of the respondent Government, the applicant contends that his application is brought in his own name and in that of four limited companies.   The Commission notes, however, that the application form submitted by the applicant on 2 August 1991 is completed by him in his personal capacity, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings he brought were in several capacities.   The Commission finds that the present application relates solely to the applicant in his personal capacity.        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   ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and      public hearing within a reasonable time by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law.      ..."        The proceedings began on 10 July 1986 and are still pending.        According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the "reasonable time" requirement under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The Government consider that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that he did not appeal the decision of the Vienna Regional Court of 8 February 1988.   The applicant states that his lawyer advised him not to appeal that decision because the reasons seemed conclusive, but also advised him to discuss the matter with the judge.   The applicant states that the judge informed the applicant that there was no point in making an appeal.        The Commission finds that it has not been established that an appeal against the decision of 8 February 1988 would have enabled the applicant to put his Convention complaints to the domestic authorities, or that it would have contributed to a significant reduction in the length of the proceedings, as investigations being undertaken by the criminal court would, at least in part, then have been duplicated by the civil court.   Accordingly, the Commission finds that the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.          The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria established by the case-law of the Convention institutions 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 a thorough examination of this complaint is required as to the merits.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application,      concerning the length of the proceedings, without      prejudging the merits of the case.   Secretary to the First Chamber     President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (A. WEITZEL)