提交人继而向最高法院上诉，并强调指出法院缺乏程序公正性，并指控他没有机会陈述自己的立场使上诉法院在作出裁决时对他的立场予以考虑。
The author filed a further appeal with the Supreme Court, complaining in particular of the absence of procedural fairness and of a possibility to be heard about the issues which the Court of Appeal had taken into consideration to render its decision.
最高法院于2003年6月12日驳回了上诉，但是这项决定直到2003年7月29日才转达给提交人。
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on 12 June 2003, but the decision was communicated to the author only on 29 July 2003.
2.10 2003年8月19日，提交人向欧洲人权法院提出申诉，指称存在违反《欧洲人权公约》第6条第1款及其第一项《议定书》第1条的情况。
2.10 On 19 August 2003, the author complained to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging breaches of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 1 of the 1st Protocol.
他的申诉于2003年10月24日被宣布不予受理，理由是没有发现任何侵犯《公约》及其《议定书》所保障的权利之表现。
His application was declared inadmissible on 24 October 2003, as the application did not disclose any appearance of a breach of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
申 诉
The complaint
3.1 提交人指控，由于司法机关对成年被收养人的明显武断处置，缔约国侵犯了他根据《公约》第十四条第1款规定的法律面前人人平等的权利，以及根据第二十六条规定的平等待遇权。
3.1 The author claims that through the judiciary's manifest arbitrariness against adopted adults, the State party violated his right to equality before the courts under article 14, paragraph 1, as well as his right to equality under article 26 of the Covenant.
他指出，法律对收养成年人规定了某些限制。
He argues that the law imposes certain restrictions on adult adoptions.
成年的被收养人及其收养父母必须证明存在父母与子女的关系，而对于未成年人，只要表明有建立这种关系的意图便足够了。
Adult adoptees and their adopting parents must prove an existing parent-child relationship, while in case of minors, a mere intent to establish such a relationship is sufficient.
此外，希望其涉及成年被收养人的过继协议得到核准的人都需要证明存在作出收养决定的具体条件。
In addition, those seeking approval of an adoption contract involving an adult adoptee need to demonstrate that concrete circumstances exist to justify the adoption.
奥地利法律制度确定成年收养人“不过硬”，从而使他们带上某种污点，据此对成年被收养人在别人眼中的形象以及对他们法案的处理方式都造成了实际的影响(尤其是涉及遗产的案例)。
By identifying adult adoptions as “weak”, the Austrian legal system attaches a certain negative stigma to them, which has very practical effects on how adopted adults are viewed and treated in court cases (especially inheritance matters).
事实上，提交人强调，审判法官和上诉法院就显示出一种主动袒护有血缘关系的远亲并忽视提交人信誉的显而易见的倾向。
Indeed, the author affirms that the trial judge and the Court of Appeal disclosed a discernible trend of actively favouring the distant biological relatives and of discrediting the author.
3.2 为证实他关于司法有偏颇和武断性的指控，提交人提到的萨尔茨堡地区法院2001年1月5日 在第一次诉讼程序中的裁决，其中说提交人是“很有算计”的人，误导了他的收养父母，不遗余力地尽量多得到物质财产，而提交人声称，他的案情不能支持这种结论。
3.2 To substantiate his claim of bias and arbitrariness, the author refers to the judgement of the Salzburg Regional Court of 5 January 2001 in the first set of proceedings, which said he was a “calculating” individual, having misled his adoptive parents and worked tirelessly to obtain as many material possessions as possible, whereas the author claims his case does not support such conclusions.
提交人指称，一审法院在毫无证据的情况下将评断性言论包含在“事实概要”之中，来否定提交人的诚信。
The author also complains that the court of first instance incorporated judgmental statements into the “summary of the facts” to discredit the author, without supporting evidence.
他认为，法院这样做是为了造成提交人在同意收养关系时具有钱财方面动机的印象。
To him, the purpose of doing so was to create the impression that the author had a monetary motive when agreeing to the adoption.
他还指出，由于法院选择的词语显示了不相信他的态度，由此司法机关再次对他不公。
He further states that the bias of the judiciary against him is repeated through the choice of vocabulary used to convey disbelief.
最后，他指控法院“有选择地”采用证据，故意对提交人造成不利。
Finally, the courts allegedly use evidence “selectively” and to the disadvantage of the author.
3.3 提交人请委员会评判处理证据的方式，以及法官在作出裁决时在行为。
3.3 The author requests the Committee to assess how the evidence was handled and how the judges conducted themselves when rendering judgement.
他提出，这将会揭示司法机关对他作为成年被收养人的根深蒂固的歧视。
He suggests that this will reveal a deep-rooted bias of the judiciary against him because he is an adult adoptee.
他申明委员会同样有权审查对遗嘱处置情况的诠释方式，从而可以看到处置的武断性。
He asserts that the Committee is equally empowered to examine the interpretation of a will's disposition to the extent that it discloses arbitrariness.
3.4 提交人还声称由于该国司法机关违反第十七条本身以及该条与第二条第1款结合起来理解，因此他成为受害者，因为缔约国干涉了他的家庭生活。
3.4 The author further claims to be the victim of a violation of article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, as the State party has interfered with his family life.
他表示，收养父母和收养子女之间的关系属于第十七条规定的范畴。
He argues that the relationship between adoptive parents and children falls within the scope of article 17.
他认为将个人财产(尤其是在去世时)传给后代或其他家庭成员的权利是家庭生活权所包含的内容。
He considers that the right to pass on one's possessions, especially in case of death, to a descendant or other family member, is encompassed in the right to family life.
缔约国对可否受理问题的意见
The State party's admissibility observations
4.1 2006年7月3日，缔约国对来文的可受理性提出质疑。
4.1 On 3 July 2006, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication.