EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 21442/93
Otto Bruckner
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 10 September 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PART II : SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 5
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms by Otto Bruckner against Austria on
1 February 1993. It was registered on 26 February 1993 under file
No. 21442/93.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hansjörg Kaltenbrunner,
lawyer, Linz. The Government of Austria were represented by their
Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department at
the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
3. The Commission took a partial decision on the admissibility of
the application on 18 October 1994. On 17 January 1996 the Commission
(First Chamber) declared the remainder of the application admissible.
The remaining part of the application concerns the applicant's
complaint about a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that his
conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was not accompanied
by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular that the
Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
4. The Commission 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."
5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 September 1996 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.
6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7. The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1940 who lives in
Linz, was convicted in administrative criminal proceedings of failure
to comply with the legislation on periods of rest at work (for further
details see Dec. 18.10.94, D.R. 79-A p. 47). A penal order was issued
by the Mayor of Linz on 19 July 1990. The applicant was fined
AS 3,000.00, with three days' detention in default.
8. The applicant's appeal to the Upper Austrian Provincial Governor
(Landeshauptmann) was rejected on 30 July 1991.
9. On 9 July 1992 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)
dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
10. Following the final decision on the admissibility of the
application, the Commission (First Chamber) 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 Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
12. In the light of the applicant's letter of 23 February 1996 and
the respondent Government's request for settlement proposal, the
Commission on 16 April 1996 considered that payment by the Government
of the sum of AS 50,000 to the applicant would represent an appropriate
settlement of the present case.
13. Settlement declarations to that effect were submitted by the
applicant on 22 May 1996 and by the Government on 16 July 1996.
14. At its session on 10 September 1996, 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 the present Report.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy