HOZA v. AUSTRIA - 37198/20 (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 750 (05 October 2023)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> HOZA v. AUSTRIA - 37198/20 (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 750 (05 October 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/750.html
Cite as: [2023] ECHR 750

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF HOZA v. AUSTRIA

(Application no. 37198/20)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

5 October 2023

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Hoza v. Austria,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Anne Louise Bormann, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE


1.  The case originated in an application against Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 20 August 
2020.


2.  The Austrian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS


3.  The applicant's details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.


4.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

THE LAW

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION


5.  The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.


6.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court considers that the person concerned is required only to show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps relating to him, to refrain from using delaying tactics and to avail himself of the scope afforded by domestic law for shortening the proceedings (see Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 35, Series A no. 157).


7.  In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.


8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. This would have been the case even if the applicant had accelerated the proceedings by availing himself of domestic remedies.


9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


10.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."


11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Rambauske, cited above, §§ 16 and 32), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. This amount takes into account the applicant's conduct during the course of the proceedings including the failure to avail himself of domestic remedies which could have accelerated the proceedings.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Declares the application admissible;
  2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
  3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

 

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant's name

Year of birth

 

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Type of procedure

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1]

37198/20

20/08/2020

Manfred HOZA

1947

04/08/2010

 

03/03/2020

 

9 years and 7 months

3 levels of jurisdiction

 

civil administrative

4,000

 


[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/750.html