European Union..Europaeische Union

(EU-Austria):

 European Union=EU=Europaeische Union:

 =====================================

 EU-European Parliament:

 -unfair elections

 (EU-Austria):

 




 

  



                  C O U N C I L  O F  E U R O P E



                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS







                DECISION OF THE COMMISSION



                   

                         AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF



                         Application No. 12240/86

                         by Franz Josef GLASL

                         against Austria





       The european Commission of Human rights sitting in private

on 13 May 1988, the following members being present:



MM.J.A.FROWEIN,Acting President

S.TRECHSEL

F.ERMACORA

G.SPERDUTI

E.BUSUTTIL

A.S.G�Z�B�Y�K

A. WEITZEL

J.-C.SOYER

H.G.SCHERMERS

H.DANELIUS

G.BATLINER

H.VANDENBERGHE

Mrs.G.H.THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM.F.MARTINEZ

C.L.ROZAKIS

Mrs.J.LIDDY



Mr.JRAYMOND,Deputy Secretary to the Commission





       Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;



       Having regard to the application introtuced on 17 November 1985

by Franz Josef Glasl against Austria and registered on 27 June 1986 under

file No. 12240/86;



      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;



      Having delibarated;



      Decides as follows:





                              - 2 -



12240/86



      The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1957, is an economist

resident in karnabrunn in Austria.



      The applicant was convicted by the Korneuburg District Court

(Bezirksgericht) on 4 September 1984 to 20 daily rates of 50-.AS as he

had not complied with an order of the military authorities calling him

up to military service. This decision obtained legal force on 24

September 1984. The applicant filed various requests and complaints,

inter alia with the constituional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)

and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) concerning

mainly his reinstitution into the previous proceedings. The sentence

was converted to imprisonment lasting from 20 to 30 August 1987. The

applicant the filed further complaints concerning inter alia the

conditions of detention.



      Other proceedings originated in elections for the Ernstbrunn

Municipal council (Gemeinderat) in respect of which in 1985 he ran as

a candidate and obtained 2 of 2015 votes. His various complaints

against the elections and several election laws were dismissed inter

alia by the Constitutional Court on 22 November 1985.



      In 1985 the applicant was again called up for military

service. when he did not comply, proceedings under military penal law

were instituted against him. On 19 February 1987 his request for

legal aid was rejected by the Korneuburg District Court on the grounds

that S. 41 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure excludes legal

aid in District Court proceedings. His appeal against this decision

was dismissed by the Korneuburg Regional court (Kreisgericht) on 2

March 1987. On 5 March 1987, the Korneuburg District Court convicted

and sentenced the applicant to 10 days' conditional imprionment. On

13 November 1987 the Korneuburg Regional Court quashed the decision

and acquitted the applicant.



      The applicant complains of these and other proceedings

alleging their unfairness and incorrect outcome. He also appears to

complain of the decision of 19 February 1987 which refused him legal

aid. The applicant relies on Articles 1-18 and 60 of the Convention

and on all provisions of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4.



      Insofar as the applicant complains, apparently under Article

6 para. 3(c), that on 19 February 1987 he was not granted legal aid

in the proceedings insituted against him under military penal law,

the commission notes that the applicant was convicted on 5 march 1987,

though on 13 November 1987 ,the Korneuburg Regional court acquitted him

of the offences. Hence, in this respect the applicant can no longer

claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the

Convention, and this part of the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the

Convention. 



      Insofar as the applicant complains of the other proceedings in

which he has been involved, and their outcome, the Commission has

examined the applicant's complaints as they have been submitted by

him.  However, after considering these complaints as a whole, the

Commission finds that they do not either disclose any appearence of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.







                              - 3 -



12240/86





      It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.





      For these reasons, the commission



      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

      _____________________________________





Deputy Secretary to the commission    Acting President to the Commission







 (J. RAYMOND)                                 (J.A. FROWWEIN)











mainfestly illfounded=offensichtlich unbegruendet