Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 68087/01

The Court has accepted, however, that the requirements of Article 6 may be fulfilled even in the absence of a public hearing, or any hearing at all, where proceedings concern exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, § 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 68087/01

Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 68087/01

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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 VII).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 68087/01

The applicant does not contest that the Administrative Court qualifies as a tribunal, and there is no indication in the file that the Administrative Court's scope of review was insufficient in the circumstances of the case (see, for instance, Fischer v. Austria, judgment, of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, pp. 17-18, §§ 30-34 with further references).

Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 68087/01

As the Austrian reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 concerning the requirement that hearings be public, has been found to be invalid (see, Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, § 29, ECHR 2000-X), the applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing (see, for instance, Fredin v. Sweden (no.2), judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, pp10-11, §§ 21-22; Fischer, cited above, p. 20-21, § 44; Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, pp.