Salzmann v. Austria



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24883/94

by Günther SALZMANN

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 21 July 1994 by

Günther SALZMANN against Austria and registered under file

No. 24883/94;

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

6 November 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 informed on 7 June 1988 that administrative

criminal proceedings would be brought against him for unlawful cutting

of trees and bushes in a protected landscape area. A penal order was

issued on 16 February 1989 by the Bregenz District Authority. The

applicant was fined a total of AS 49,500.00, with 35 days' detention

in default.

The applicant's appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government

was rejected on 12 May 1989, although the fine was reduced.

On 2 October 1989 the Constitutional Court rejected the

applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 28 December 1993 the

Administrative Court dismissed the bulk of the applicant's

administrative complaint, and quashed the decision of 12 May 1989 to

a limited extent. The applicant's representative received the decision

of 28 December 1993 on 7 February 1994.

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. He also alleges a violation of

Article 6 of the Convention by reason of the length of the proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The Government's observations were submitted on 6 November 1995.

The applicant has not submitted observations in reply.

THE LAW

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

Convention. The Government do not accept that the case discloses a

violation of Article 6 (Art. 6). In connection with the length of the

proceedings, the Government point out that the proceedings were

conducted particularly expeditiously before the administrative

authorities, and state that the proceedings before the Administrative

Court lasted as long as they did because supreme courts are required

both to obtain all the documents in the case, and also to subject the

case to a comprehensive and thorough scrutiny. The Government also

point out that the applicant was partially successful before the

Administrative Court.

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)