Erdogdu v. Austria



SUR LA RECEVABILITÉ

Application No. 21481/93

by Ismail ERDOGDU

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 24 February 1993

by Ismail ERDOGDU against Austria and registered under file

No. 21481/93;

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

1 February 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 16 May 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Turkish 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 various contraventions of the Road Traffic Act and the

Motor Vehicles Act arising out of an incident on 22 September 1990.

A penal order was issued on 24 October 1990 by the Bregenz District

Authority by which the applicant was fined a total of AS 10,560.00,

with 468 hours' detention in default.

The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government

was rejected on 12 November 1991.

On 25 February 1992 the Constitutional Court rejected the

applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 2 September 1992 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 1 February 1995

and the applicant's observations in reply on 16 May 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)