Proksch v. Austria



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18724/91

by Werner PROKSCH

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 1 August 1991 by

Werner PROKSCH against Austria and registered under file No. 18724/91;

Having regard to:

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

the Commission;

- the Commissions's partial decision of 18 October 1994;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

26 January 1995, and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 22 May 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 failure to erect a wall, as required by a planning

consent. A penal order was issued on 8 April 1988 by the Mayor of

Innsbruck by which the applicant was fined AS 40,000.00, with 40 days'

detention in default.

The applicant's appeal to the Provincial Government of Tyrol was

rejected on 26 May 1988.

On 26 September 1988 the Constitutional Court rejected the

applicant's constitutional complaint, and on 6 December 1990 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 Commission took a partial decision in the case on

18 October 1994.

The Government's observations were submitted on 26 January 1995

and the applicant's observations in reply on 22 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 REMAINDER OF 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)