FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF CANER v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 35841/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
20 September 2018
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Caner v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Yonko Grozev, President,
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
 Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2018,
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 application was communicated to the Austrian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
3. The name of the applicant and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained principally 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...”
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant 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). 7. In the leading cases of Vitzthum v. Austria, no. 8140/04, §§ 21-23, 26 July 2007, and Donner v. Austria, no. 32407/04, §§ 34-38, 22 February 2007, 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 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. 9. II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Donner, §§ 45-46, cited above.

Outcome for Article 6: violation