FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF FUCHSHUBER v. AUSTRIA
 
(Application no. 15813/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
9 November 2017
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fuchshuber v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Nona Tsotsoria, President,
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
 Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 October 2017,
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 the date indicated in the appended table. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr G. Lehner, a lawyer practising in Wels. 3. The application was communicated to the Austrian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
4. The applicant and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 8. In the leading case of Vitzthum v. Austria, no. 8140/04, §§ 21-23, 26 July 2007, the Court already found a violation in respect of an issue similar to the one in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of this complaint. 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. 10.

Outcome for Article 6: violation