PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 49455/99) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mrs Maria Gollner (“the applicant”), on 28 June 1999.

The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr M. Urbanek, a lawyer practising in St. Pölten. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that civil proceedings concerning her lasted unreasonably long.

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court).Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

By a decision of 21 November 2000 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

As of 1 November 2001 the application was allocated to the First Section of the Court. Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case was constituted as provided for in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

On 23 October 1992 the applicant filed a maintenance application with the Herzogenburg District Court (Bezirksgericht) against her husband. At the same time she requested legal aid, which was granted on 28 October 1992. On 18 November 1992 a hearing was held. On 22 December 1992 the proceedings were discontinued following an agreement between the parties. They were resumed on 2 December 1993 and on 16 February 1994 a hearing was held. A further hearing which was scheduled for 3 May 1994 had to be cancelled due to the judge’s illness. On 7 November 1994 the applicant requested to be placed under the care of a guardian as far as the maintenance proceedings were concerned. This motion was granted by the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht) on 27 February 1995.

On 9 November 1994 a hearing was held and an expert was appointed to assess the income of the applicant’s husband. On 7 December 1994 the expert asked to be discharged. On 9 January 1995 the court appointed a new expert who submitted his opinion on 27 January 1995. Following two requests by the applicant for extensions of the time-limit for filing observations on the expert’s opinion, that time-limit was fixed at 28 April 1995. On 8 August 1995 a further hearing was held. On 7 September 1995 the court requested the expert to supplement his opinion which he did on 23 October 1995. Following two requests by the applicant for extensions of the time-limit, she submitted her comments on the supplemented expert opinion on 10 January 1996. On 21 March 1996 a further hearing was held. On 2 April 1996 the applicant lodged an application for the preservation of evidence (Beweissicherungsantrag). A hearing which had been scheduled for 15 April was cancelled upon the applicant’s request. It was held on 27 June 1996, when the taking of evidence was closed.

On 14 August 1996 the District Court gave judgment, partly dismissing the applicant’s claim. Following her appeal, the St. Pölten Regional Court quashed the decision for procedural errors on 13 December 1996 and referred the case back to the District Court. On 25 February 1997 the applicant appealed against the St. Pölten Regional Court’s decision. On 24 November 1997 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) confirmed the decision of the St. Pölten Regional Court, by which it had quashed the District Court’s decision of 14 August 1996.

Meanwhile, on 24 February 1997, the applicant lodged requests for provisional maintenance (vorläufiger Unterhalt) and for the preservation of evidence with the District Court. On 18 March 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s motions. On 28 March 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision and filed a motion challenging the judge for bias.

On 13 February 1998 the bias motion was dismissed by the St. Pölten Regional Court. It noted that the complaint concerned alleged procedural errors and the length of the proceedings, which matters had no bearing on a challenge for bias. On 24 March 1998 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).

On 30 April 1998 the St. Pölten Regional Court dismissed the appeal concerning a motion for the preservation of evidence, but quashed the District Court’s refusal of the motions for provisional maintenance and referred the case back.

On 22 June and 17 September 1998 the District Court held hearings. On 24 September 1998 it partly dismissed the applicant’s maintenance claim.

On 23 October 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision and requested, pursuant to section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisations-gesetz), that a time-limit be fixed for the decision on the motions for provisional maintenance.

On 29 October 1998 the motions for provisional maintenance were partly dismissed by the District Court. On 23 November 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision.

On 3 March 1999 the St. Pölten Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 24 September 1998 for procedural errors and referred the case back. The appeal concerning the motions for provisional maintenance was partly dismissed. On 15 April 1999 the applicant therefore lodged a further appeal and requested that it be given suspensive effect to preserve the status quo before the Regional Court’s decision. On 27 April 1999 the District Court granted this request. On 22 June 1999 the applicant requested, pursuant to section 91 of the Courts Act, that a time‑limit be fixed for the decision on her further appeal. On 23 June 1999 the St Pölten Regional Court dismissed the further appeal against its decision of 3 March 1999 concerning the motions for provisional maintenance.

In the main proceedings a hearing scheduled for 17 August 1999 was postponed upon the applicant’s request. It was held on 30 September 1999. A further hearing scheduled for 1 December 1999 was cancelled due to the judge’s illness. Further hearings were held on 3 May 2000 and 15 June 2000.

On 25 August 2000 the Herzogenburg District Court rejected the applicant’s maintenance claim.

On 11 January 2001 the St. Pölten Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, partly granted her maintenance claim. The judgment was served on 13 February 2001.