FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF HOZA v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 37198/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 October 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hoza v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2023,
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 20 August 2020. 2. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court considers that the person concerned is required only to show diligence in carrying out the procedural steps relating to him, to refrain from using delaying tactics and to avail himself of the scope afforded by domestic law for shortening the proceedings (see Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 35, Series A no. 157). 7. 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. 8. 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. This would have been the case even if the applicant had accelerated the proceedings by availing himself of domestic remedies. 9. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10.

Outcome for Article 6: violation