State liability for unreasonably long proceedings: reasonable time, delay remedies, damage, limitation and the AHG request procedure.
Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte · Damages and civil law
Details decide a damages claim: cause, evidence, each head of loss and the applicable deadline. We put these levels into a clear order and represent your interests in negotiations and in court.
Proceedings that remain unresolved for a long time can be financially and personally burdensome. Duration alone does not establish state liability. The relevant questions are whether the duration was unreasonable in the circumstances, whether an official acted unlawfully and culpably and what loss was caused by that conduct.
Article 6(1) ECHR requires a determination within a reasonable time. The Austrian AHG adds the requirements of section 1. In administrative proceedings, the duty to decide under section 73 AVG and a complaint under Article 130(1)(3) B-VG and section 8 VwGVG may also matter.
This article explains how to organise a long procedural history, classify possible remedies and prepare a state liability claim. It focuses on a reliable chronology that brings together complexity, official activity, your participation and the importance of the proceedings.
Classify whether the duration, a delay remedy or the concrete damage should be assessed first.
For long proceedings, the start date, procedural steps, complexity and effect on your legal position matter.
Keep the application, acknowledgement, requests for documents, submissions and every notice from the authority or court. Mark periods without an identifiable procedural step and record the decision that remains outstanding.
Record service, file number and the current position. In administrative proceedings, a complaint for failure to decide under Article 130(1)(3) B-VG and section 8 VwGVG may be relevant. Its requirements depend on the proceedings and authority.
Prepare a timeline from the start of the proceedings to the disadvantage. Link every head of loss to an invoice, contract, business record or other reliable document.
A long procedure cannot be assessed by one universal number of months or years. Article 6(1) ECHR requires a hearing within a reasonable time. The assessment considers the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant, the conduct of authorities and courts and the importance of the matter.
Start with a complete timeline. Record the application or claim, service, submissions, evidence, expert reports, adjournments and decisions. A case may be problematic even when it contains individual steps if the overall duration is no longer proportionate to its subject and importance.
State liability also requires section 1 AHG. An official acting in execution of the law must have caused damage to property or a person through unlawful and culpable conduct. Unreasonable duration is therefore one legal issue, not the whole claim.
Begin with the first effective application and proof of receipt. Arrange each response by date, including requests for documents, transfers, hearings, expert work and notices about the next step.
Do not record only complete inactivity. Repeated requests without a visible decision, delayed transfers or long periods without a reasoned next step may also matter. Separate objectively documented dates from your legal assessment.
In court proceedings, add the claim, submissions, evidence orders, hearing dates and decisions. Keep file numbers and proof of service. A clear chronology makes it easier to assess whether a delay was explained by the case or lacks a sufficient reason.
Complex files may require more time. Extensive records, several parties, technical evidence, experts or European-law issues can explain duration. The question remains whether the individual delays are proportionate to that complexity.
Your own conduct is relevant too. Missing documents, late submissions or requested adjournments may explain part of the time. This requires precise attribution, not a blanket assumption that every period is your responsibility.
The importance of the matter can be decisive. A pending benefit, business decision or serious personal consequence may require a different assessment from a case with limited immediate impact. There is no universal maximum duration.
Section 2(2) AHG may exclude compensation if the injured person could have avoided the loss through an appeal or complaint. For delay, identify the remedy available in the particular procedure and whether it could actually have prevented the disadvantage.
For administrative proceedings, Article 130(1)(3) B-VG provides for a complaint concerning the authority’s failure to decide. Section 8 VwGVG governs important requirements. Section 73 AVG requires an authority to decide without unnecessary delay and may provide a specific period depending on the procedure.
A delay complaint does not replace an AHG action, and an AHG claim does not replace an available remedy. Keep the notice, application, proof of service and file status. The correct route depends on the type of proceedings.
Delay may cause financial loss such as additional financing costs, wasted expenditure or provable lost income. It is not enough that a loss arose during the proceedings. It must have been caused by the unlawful and culpable delay.
Separate each head of loss in a table with period, amount, cause and evidence. For lost income, provide a reliable comparison. For financing costs, connect the agreement, rate, payments and the unresolved proceedings.
Non-pecuniary effects are not automatically established by every long procedure. The importance of the matter, concrete personal impact and legal basis require separate assessment. The guidance on evidence and limitation helps organise the facts.
Under section 8 AHG, the injured person should ask the public-law entity in writing to state within three months whether it accepts or wholly or partly rejects compensation. The request should connect the entity, official conduct, chronology, alleged unlawfulness, fault, damage and evidence.
The request is more than a statement that proceedings took a long time. Identify the relevant periods and explain why the duration was unreasonable in view of the case. State what decision or action remained outstanding and how the alleged delay caused the loss.
The damage documentation check and limitation check help arrange dates and evidence. They do not decide whether the legal claim succeeds.
Under section 9(1) AHG, the regional court in whose district the infringement occurred has exclusive first-instance jurisdiction over an action against the public-law entity. This civil action is separate from ongoing administrative or court proceedings.
The civil court does not simply decide whether a faster or more favourable outcome would have been preferable. It examines the AHG requirements, the specific breach, fault, causation and compensable damage. The procedural file remains important evidence.
Keep the complete file, the section 8 request, the entity’s response and the loss calculation. If several bodies were involved, allocate responsibility for each period. The claim check can help structure the first review.
Send the key facts and documents. We will organise the claim, evidence, valuation and the next safe step.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000