CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s59505BDB { width:35.69pt; display:inline-block } .s563E888D { width:294.18pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION   FINAL DECISION [Note1]   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 31266/96 by G. H. against Austria [Note2]     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 12 October 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mr   P. Kūris,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mrs   H.S. Greve,   Mr   K. Traja, judges ,   and   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 26 March 1996 by G. H. against Austria and registered on 2 May 1996 under file no. 31266/96;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having regard to the European Commission of Human Rights’ partial decision of 23   October 1997;     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 20   February 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 2 March 1998;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He is a forester, and is represented before the Court by Mr. H. Walther, lawyer, of Klagenfurt. The facts of the application, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     On 6 May 1991 the applicant applied to the mayor of Baldramsdorf for an amendment to a planning consent for a game fence in 1988. The amendment concerned the line which a game fence should take. The mayor convened a site meeting for 5 July 1991, which was also attended by a neighbour ("the neighbour").     On 20 November 1991, the applicant applied for the superior authority (the local council: Gemeindevorstand) to decide on his application. On 13 October 1992, the council accepted the transfer to it, but refused the substantive application.     On 7 April 1993 the Kärnten Regional Government (Landesregierung), on the applicant's appeal, quashed the decision of 13 October 1992 and remitted the case to the council. An objection by the neighbour was dismissed.     The council took its second decision on 17 May 1993. On this occasion, it again accepted the transfer to it, and granted the applicant's application for an amendment to the line of his fence.     The neighbour challenged the decision of 17 May 1993 with the Regional Government, which on 21 September 1993 quashed the decision of 17 May and again remitted the case to the council. However, on 8 November 1993 the applicant challenged the decision of 21   September 1993 by way of an administrative complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof), which on 21 May 1996 quashed the decision of 21 September 1993.   The case therefore returned to the procedural stage where the council's decision of 17 May 1993 had been made and challenged by the neighbour.     On 7 May 1997 the Regional Government dismissed the neighbour's objection. The neighbour did not appeal to the Administrative Court.   THE LAW     The applicant’s complaint relates to the length of the proceedings in question.     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 contest the allegation.     The proceedings began on 20 November 1991 and ended on 7 May 1997 when the applicant’s planning consent became effective. They accordingly lasted nearly five and a half years.           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.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE , without prejudging the merits of the case.             S. Dollé   N. Bratza   Registrar   President   [Note1]   Do not forget to block text with Alt+B in order to avoid that the information in the highlighted zones disappears. [Note2]   First letter in capital letters plus the article according to normal speech.