EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 20807/92
Mikdat Bulut
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 5 March 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(paras. 1-3)
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
(paras. 4-8)
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(paras. 9-20)
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(paras. 21-23)
ANNEX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . .5I.THE PARTIES
1. This Report, which is drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights (First Chamber) in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 of
the Convention, concerns the application brought by Mikdat Bulut
against Austria.
2. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was
represented by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz,
Austria.
3. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent,
Mr. Franz Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department
at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision
on admissibility of 29 November 1995, attached hereto as an appendix
and can be summarised as follows:
5. On 21 December 1990 the Innsbruck Federal Police Department
(Bundespolizeidirektion) issued a residence prohibition against the
applicant, referring to a conviction of 23 March 1990 and to
administrative offences for which the applicant had been fined.
6. The Tyrol Security Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion) rejected the
applicant's appeal on 14 June 1991, and on 30 September 1991 the
Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) declined to deal with the
applicant's constitutional complaint.
7. On 12 June 1992 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)
rejected the applicant's administrative complaint.
8. Before the Commission the applicant complains that the residence
prohibition which was issued on 21 December 1990 constituted an
unjustified interference with his rights under Article 8 of the
Convention.
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
9. The application was introduced on 29 September 1992 and
registered on 13 October 1992. The applicant's first application
(No. 17358/90) terminated in a judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights on 22 February 1996. A third application (No. 25191/94)
concerned the applicant's detention pending removal (Schubhaft) which
was not finally carried out. It was declared inadmissible on
12 January 1995.
10. On 2 March 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48
para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to
submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.
11. The Government's observations were submitted on 27 May 1994 and
the observations in reply by the applicant were submitted on
4 August 1994.
12. On 29 November 1995 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
13. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 8 December 1995 and they were invited to submit any
further evidence or additional observations which they wished to put
before the Commission.
14. By letter of 26 January 1996 the Government informed the
Commission that the applicant had been issued a re-entry permit by the
Austrian Embassy in Ljubljana and that the residence prohibition
against him had been lifted ex officio on 4 December 1995. With regard
to the fact that the applicant was again entitled to legally reside in
Austria and that he was thus given satisfaction, the Government
expressed their wish that the application be struck out of the list of
the Commission's cases, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention.
15. By letter of 31 January 1996 the Commission requested the
applicant to comment on the Government's proposal by 16 February 1996.
16. On 9 February 1996 the applicant asked for an extension until
26 February 1996 as a judgment in his first case before the Convention
organs (Application No. 17358/90) was to be given by the European Court
of Human Rights on 22 February 1996. By letter of 26 February 1996 he
asked for a further extension until 28 February 1996.
17. On 29 February 1996 the applicant submitted that the case should
not be struck off the list as he had suffered considerably as a result
of the residence prohibition. He pointed to the uncertainty hovering
over him and his family since 1990 and to the costs incurred in his
representation. He also submitted that Governments should not be
permitted to play "cat and mouse" with an applicant - the applicant was
twice taken into detention pending removal - until an application is
declared admissible, and then be able to avoid responsibility by
withdrawing a residence prohibition. He considered that he should be
granted a permanent residence permit. By the same letter the applicant
also made settlement proposals.
18. On 29 February 1996 the Government declined to comment on the
settlement proposals.
19. On 5 March 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) adopted the
present Report.
20. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
21. The Commission notes that residence prohibition which was made
against the applicant in 1990 and which formed the basis of the present
application has been lifted.
22. The Commission notes that the question of one period of detention
pending removal was considered in Application No. 25191/94, which was
declared inadmissible on 12 January 1995, and that throughout the
period from 1990 until the lifting of the prohibition in 1995, the
applicant remained in Austria and was able to pursue his occupation as
a waiter. The application does not concern a refusal to grant a
residence permit, and so the applicant's submission that he should now
be given such a permit is not pertinent. The Commission concludes
therefore that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of
Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Commission.
23. The Commission further concludes that respect for human rights
as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the
examination. In particular, it considers that the question of the
applicant's costs is not a matter which would require continuation of
the examination.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 20807/92 OFF ITS LIST OF CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;
DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers
for information, to send it also to the parties' representatives,
and to publish it.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy