Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 20026/06

The European Court of Human Rights has found in its case-law that the passing of a lenient sentence or its reduction in an express or measurable manner was appropriate redress for a breach of the reasonable time requirement (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66, and Donner v. Austria, no. 32407/04, § 26, 22 February 2007).

As to the first avenue proposed by the Government, which consists essentially of waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the Court observes that the reduction of a sentence on the ground of excessive length of proceedings deprive the individual concerned of his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged sufficiently clearly a failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Karg v. Austria (dec.), no. 9749/4, May 2008; Beck v. Norway, judgment of 26 June 2001, § 27; and Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 20026/06

However, he did not do so at any stage of the proceedings and has therefore failed to give the domestic authorities the opportunity intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violation (see Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 19, § 36).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 20026/06

In this respect the Court reiterates that an application under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of administrative proceedings (see Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2001-I; and Emsenhuber v. Austria (dec.), no. 54536/00, 11 September 2003).