PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 20087/06) 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, Mr Michael Stechauner (“the applicant”), on 3 May 2006.

The applicant was represented by Mr M. Lechner, a lawyer practising in Lochau. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the proceedings concerning his doctor’s fees had not been dealt with within a reasonable time and that the Regional Appeals Commission which dealt with his case had not been impartial or independent.

On 2 May 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant lives in Großau.

The applicant is a practitioner of general medicine. He has an individual contract (Einzelvertrag) with the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board (Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse). The applicant has also obtained special diplomas in the areas of echocardiology and sonography and performs these types of examination on his patients.

One part of the individual contract between the applicant and the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board is the Remuneration Regulation (Honorarordnung) which states that certain types of examinations will only be reimbursed if they are performed by a specialist doctor.

The Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board refused to reimburse echocardiologic and sonographic examinations as the applicant was not a specialist doctor but a general practitioner.

On 2 February 1998 the applicant claimed payment for echocardiologic and sonographic services amounting to 1,900.31 euros (EUR) for the third quarter of 1997 before the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission); on 23 April 1998 he submitted another claim for payment amounting to EUR 1,896.65 for the fourth quarter of 1997; at an unknown date this claim for payment was increased to EUR 1,944.57. On 6 July 1998 the applicant submitted a claim for payment of EUR 1,184.81 for the first quarter of 1998.

The Joint Arbitration Committee held hearings on 1 April 1998 and 16 September 1998.

As the Joint Arbitration Committee did not reach a decision because of a tie, the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission) on 2 July 1998 and 7 October 1998, respectively.

Meanwhile, on 6 October 1998 the applicant had claimed payment for echocardiologic and sonographic services amounting to EUR 1,169.75 for the second quarter of 1998. At a later date this claim was reduced to EUR 1,098.63.

On 25 November 1998 the Regional Appeals Commission refused to grant the applicant’s claims concerning the third and fourth quarters of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998.

On 12 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) which, on 27 November 2000, set aside the decision of the Regional Appeals Commission of 25 November 1998. It found that the applicant’s right to have his case heard by an impartial tribunal had been violated as one of the assessors nominated by the Lower Austrian Medical Association had negotiated the disputed clause of the Remuneration Regulation. Consequently, the Regional Appeals Commission did not appear independent and impartial.

As regards the claim for the second quarter of 1998, the applicant had filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction to the Regional Appeals Commission on 6 April 1999 owing to a tie in the Joint Arbitration Committee. As at that time the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 25 November 1998 was pending before the Constitutional Court, the Regional Appeals Commission decided to stay the proceedings until the Constitutional Court had given its decision. On an unknown date the Regional Appeals Commission decided to join the proceedings in respect of all the applicant’s claims, that is to say; those for the third and fourth quarter of 1997 and for the first and second quarters of 1998.

After the Constitutional Court had set aside the Regional Appeals Commission’s decision of 25 November 1998, the newly composed Regional Appeals Commission again rejected the applicant’s claims on 19 September 2001.

The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that there had not been a public hearing. The Constitutional Court set aside the contested decision for the lack of a public hearing in a decision of 25 November 2002.

On 26 November 2003 the Regional Appeals Commission held a public hearing. On 20 December 2004 the Regional Appeals Commission rejected the applicant’s claims, holding that it was up to the parties to the general agreement to limit direct reimbursement of certain services to specialist doctors. Such limitations served the planning and administration of affordable healthcare services and were objectively justified.

On 29 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment and lack of independence and impartiality of the Regional Appeals Commission.

On 27 September 2005 the Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to a fair hearing and upheld the contested decision. It held that the assessors of the Regional Appeals Commission were independent in exercising their duties and that no circumstances giving rise to doubts about their impartiality or independence had arisen in the present case. In particular, none of the assessors of the Regional Appeals Commission had been involved in the conclusion of the general agreement or of the individual contract at issue in the proceedings. The mere fact that the assessors were members of Regional Medical Associations or Regional Health Insurance Boards which had provisions of the same content in their general agreements was not sufficient to cast doubt on their impartiality. This decision was served on counsel on 29 November 2005.