CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 24 avril 1996

.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 }        In the case of Lagler v. Austria (no. 3) (1),         The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 6/1996/625/808.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. 2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________         Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 29 March 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Chairman,       Mr F. Matscher,       Mr B. Walsh,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 17 January 1996 by an Austrian national, Mr Gert Lagler, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;         Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;         Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;         Having regard to the Commission's report of 6 September 1995 on the application (no. 18624/91) lodged with the Commission by Mr Lagler on 26 July 1991;         Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 October 1995, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;         Whereas the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in the Austrian civil courts, to which he is a party, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";         Whereas the applicant requested that his application be considered in spite of its late submission, in particular because he did not have the relevant legal knowledge, received the Commission's report only on 24 October 1995 and was ill during January 1996;         Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.     Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the       Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an       application the case must be referred to it within a period of       three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's       report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to       the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a       violation of the Convention;   2.     Notes that in this case the Commission's report was transmitted       to the Committee of Ministers on 16 October 1995 and a faxed copy       of the application was received at the registry of the Court on       17 January 1996, that is one day after expiry of the three-month       period;   3.     Considers that the explanations put forward do not disclose any       special circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time       or justify its starting to run afresh;   4.     Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be       considered by the Court.         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 24 April 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Louis-Edmond PETTITI       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar