CASE OF BIRNLEITNER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant was born in 1937 and lived in Aistersheim. 6. The applicant owned a landholding of some 150 hectares, which is an approved hunting ground (Eigenjagd). According to the Upper Austrian Hunting Act (Oberösterreichisches Jagdgesetz), every six years, the District Authority has to establish the boundaries of the Upper Austrian hunting grounds. In this respect, requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land allocated to their hunting grounds where, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of hunting rights, boundaries need readjustment (Arrondierungsantrag). On 29 September 2004 the applicant filed such a request for readjustment in respect of the next six years’ hunting period, i.e. from April 2005 to March 2011. 7. On 28 December 2004 the Grieskirchen District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) partly granted the applicant’s request and assigned specified plots of third persons to the applicant’s hunting grounds, but dismissed her request concerning some other parcels of land. 8. On 21 October 2005 the Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). 9. On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint due to lack of prospects of success and referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 18 April 2006. On 2 May 2006 the Administrative Court requested the applicant to complement the complaint. The applicant submitted her additional comments on 21 June 2006 and requested an oral hearing. On 31 August 2006 the Upper Austria Regional Government submitted its additional comments to the Administrative Court. 10. On 29 September 2008, after having held an oral hearing on the same day, the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint as unfounded. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 13 October 2008.