A., L.E. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA



EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 13811/88

A. and L.E.

and others

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 March 1994)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                 Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I:  STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION

1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by A. and L.E. and others against

Austria on 14 January 1988.  It was registered on 29 April 1988 under

file No. 13811/88.

      The applicants were represented by Mr. R. Wandl, a lawyer

practising in Sankt Pölten.

      The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent,

Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at

the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2.    On 31 May 1991 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared

admissible the applicants' complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention relating to the length of the proceedings.  It then

proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the

Convention which provides as follows:

      "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

      it:

      a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

           together with the representatives of the parties an

           examination of the petition and, if need be, an

           investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

           States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

           after an exchange of views with the Commission;

      b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

           the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

           settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human

           Rights as defined in this Convention."

3.    The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 March 1994 it adopted this

Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,

is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution

reached.

      The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

           MM.   A. WEITZEL, President

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                                PART I

                        STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4.    The three applicant couples are Austrian nationals residing at

Obritzberg, Lower Austria.  They are partly the persons, partly legal

successors of the persons who brought Application No. 9273/81 which

lead to the European Court of Human Right's judgment of 23 April 1987

(Eur. Court H.R., Ettl judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117).

In this judgment the Court found that the organisation of the

agricultural authorities before which land consolidation proceedings

under the Lower Austrian Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungsgesetz) were

conducted in respect of the applicants' land was not in violation of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.  The present case concerns the

same proceedings.  The applicants now complain of their length.

5.    On 30 July 1973 the Lower Austrian Agricultural District

Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) issued a consolidation plan for

Obritzberg which included the applicant's land.  On 27 August 1973 the

applicant's appealed to the Regional Land Reform Board

(Landesagrarsenat) which decided on 26 and 27 May 1975 on the appeal.

On 6 October 1976 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat)

partially allowed the applicant's appeal.  On 1 and 28 February and

19 March 1980 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)

rejected the applicant's complaint against the Supreme Land Reform

Board and on 11 and 25 November 1980 the Administrative Court

(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) to which the case had been referred quashed

the Supreme Land Reform Board's decision on the consolidation plan.

6.    Proceedings were resumed before the Supreme Land Reform Board

which remitted the case on 3 March 1982 to the Agricultural District

Authority, which took a new decision on 27 March 1985.  On 1 July 1986

the Provincial Land Reform Board partly allowed the applicants' appeals

and referred the case back to the Agricultural District Authority.  On

19 July and 11 October 1988 the Agricultural District Authority decided

again.  On 19 December 1989 the Regional Land Reform Board decided on

the applicants' appeals.

7.    While two applicant couples did not lodge any further remedies

against the Regional Land Reform Board's decision the applicant couple

E. complained to the Constitutional Court, which on 27 June 1990

refused to deal with the complaint.  On 12 March 1991 the

Administrative Court dismissed the further complaint.

8.    On 22 April 1992 the Agricultural District Authority issued a new

consolidation plan for Obritzberg after the former one had been quashed

by the Administrative Court on 11 and 25 November 1980.  It appears

that proceedings are still pending.

9.    Before the Commission the applicants complained under

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the land

consolidation proceedings.

                                PART II

                           SOLUTION REACHED

10.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with

Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to

submit any proposals they wished to make.

11.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary of the

Commission, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the

parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

12.   In the light of the response of parties, the Commission decided

to invite the parties to a meeting in Vienna on 14 February 1994 with

a view to discussing the possibilities of reaching a friendly

settlement. At the meeting, the Commission was represented by

Mr. Ermarcora as Delegate, the Secretary to the Commission and other

members of the Secretariat. As a result of the negotiations, the

parties reached agreement in the terms set out below. This agreement

was confirmed by the parties by letters of 3 and 7 March 1994

respectively.

13.  

      "Statements of the parties with a view to a friendly settlement

      With reference to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the European

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

the parties in the proceedings concerning Application No. 13811/88,

lodged by the applicants E. and others, declare with a view to a

friendly settlement, reached with assistance of the European Commission

of Human Rights, as follows:

      1.   The Government of the Republic of Austria will pay to each

      applicant couple a sum of AS 200,000 as compensation in respect

      of any possible claims relating to the present application, as

      well as AS 50,000 in respect of costs incurred in the domestic

      proceedings.

      2.   A lump sum of AS 70,000 will be payed in respect of costs

      incurred in the proceedings before the Commission.

      3.   The applicants declare their application settled.

      4.   The applicants waive any further claims against the

      Republic of Austria before domestic or national instances

      relating to the facts underlying the present application, which

      exclusively concerns the length of the domestic proceedings up

      to the time of the friendly settlement."

      "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung

      In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13811/88 des Beschwerdeführer E.

u.a. verständigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf

Artikel 28 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der

Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter Mitwirkung der

Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die nachstehende

gütliche Regelung:

      1.   Die Regierung der Republik Österreich zahlt jedem

      beschwerdeführenden Paar als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaige

      Ansprüche im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden

      Individualbeschwerde einen Betrag von öS 200.000 sowie öS 50.000

      hinsichtlich der Kosten des Innerstaatlichen Verfahrens.

      2.   Zum Ausgleich der Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens werden

      insgesamt öS 70.000 gezahlt.

      3.   Die Beschwerdeführer erklären ihre oben genannte Beschwerde

      als erledigt.

      4.   Die Beschwerdeführer verzichten auf die Geltendmachung

      allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen Österreich vor nationalen

      oder internationalen Instanzen im Zusammenhang mit dem der

      Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden Sachverhalt, der ausschliesslich die

      Dauer des innerstaatlichen Verfahrens bis zum Vergleichsabschluss

      betrifft."

14.   At its session on 8 March 1994, the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

      It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b)

of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been

secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the

Convention.

15.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the First Chamber     President of the First Chamber

      (M. F. BUQUICCHIO)                  (A. WEITZEL)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy