Schmid v. Austria



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19543/92

by Karl SCHMID

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 12 February 1992

by Karl SCHMID against Austria and registered under file No. 19543/92;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

12 December 1994, and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 8 February 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He is represented before

the Commission by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in

Bregenz.

The applicant was convicted in administrative criminal

proceedings of violent behaviour ("ungestümes Benehmen"), namely

calling policemen rude names and threatening to hit them. A penal

order was issued by the Bregenz District Authority on

19 September 1989, by which the applicant was fined AS 1,100, with 60

hours' detention in default.

The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Security Directorate was

rejected on 8 October 1990.

On 1 July 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's

administrative complaint.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention

in that his conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was not

accompanied by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular that

the Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The Government's observations were submitted on 12 December 1994

and the applicant's observations in reply on 8 February 1995.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention. The Government consider that the case does not disclose

a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6).

The Commission has had regard to the facts of the present case,

to the parties' observations, and to the case-law of the European Court

of Human Rights. It finds that the case raises questions under the

Convention which cannot at this stage be rejected as being manifestly

ill-founded, and which require to be determined on the merits. No

other ground of inadmissibility has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)