FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF HEINZ AND HAIDERER v. AUSTRIA
(Applications nos. 33010/22 and 31668/23)
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
3 April 2025
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Heinz and Haiderer v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
 JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8. 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. 9. 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. With regard to application no. 31668/23, the Court notes that this would have been the case even if the applicant had accelerated the proceedings by availing himself of domestic remedies earlier. 10. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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 sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation