T. - Austria (N˚ 27783/95)
Judgment 14.11.2000 [Section III]

Facts: A bank brought an action against the applicant in 1988. The proceedings were stayed in 1996. In 1994 the applicant applied for legal aid, submitting a declaration of means according to which he had no income, property, savings or other assets. He was asked to provide further information, which he did. His request for legal aid was refused by the court, which imposed a fine of 30,000 schillings for abuse of process. It noted that the documents submitted by the applicant showed that he was paying rent, so that he must have some income. No hearing was held. The applicant's appeal was also dismissed without a hearing. As the applicant did not pay the fine, it was converted into 10 days' imprisonment.

Law: Article 6(1) (length of proceedings) – An overall duration of 8½ years for one level of jurisdiction cannot be regarded as reasonable.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6(1) and (3)(a) and (b) – The offence of abuse of process is not classified as criminal in Austrian law and its nature, relating to the inherent power of a court to ensure the proper conduct of its proceedings, is disciplinary rather than criminal. However, both the maximum penalty (400,000 schillings) and the actual penalty are considerably higher than in comparable cases relating to penalties for misconduct in court proceedings and the fine was punitive in character. Moreover, although the term of imprisonment in default is much shorter than that at stake in the case of Ravnsborg v. Sweden (Series A no. 283-B), an oral hearing in separate proceedings was required in that case before the fine could be converted into imprisonment, whereas no such guarantee was present in this case. Consequently, what was at stake for the applicant was sufficiently important to warrant classifying the offence as criminal.

The fine was imposed on the applicant without a hearing and he only learned of the accusations when the decision was served on him. Furthermore, the appeal could not remedy these shortcomings, since the appeal court rejected the appeal without a hearing.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The applicant limited his claim to expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Convention organs, which the Court awarded in full.