Application No. 19893/92
by D.S.
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 13 May 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 12 February 1992
by D.S. against Austria and registered on 24 April 1992 under file No.
19893/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1933. He lives in
H. and is represented before the Commission by Mr. K. Reisch, lawyer,
of Kitzbühel. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant,
may be summarised as follows.
Preliminary proceedings were opened against the applicant in
1981. He was convicted on 30 May 1984 of fraud. He received the
written judgment on 4 July 1986.
On 13 March 1987 the judgment of the Supreme Court (Oberster
Gerichtshof), quashing the judgment of 30 May 1984, was served on the
applicant.
In the second round of proceedings, the applicant was convicted
on 23 March 1988 of negligent insolvency. He received the written
judgment on 11 April 1989. The applicant's nullity appeal was
determined in June 1990. The written judgment was served on the
applicant in July 1990. The Supreme Court, a second time, quashed the
first instance judgment and remitted the case to the first instance
court.
On 16 September 1991 the applicant was convicted, in a third
round of proceedings, of negligent insolvency. The written judgment
was served on him on 3 March 1992.
When the application was introduced the proceedings were still
pending before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings. He also
complained that the proceedings were "blown up" out of all proportion
to the importance of the case.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 12 February 1992 and registered
on 24 April 1992. On 20 October 1992 the Commission decided to bring
the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to
request written observations on its admissibility and merits. After
the respondent Government had requested an extension of time for
submission of observations in order to permit settlement negotiations
between the parties, the applicant on 15 February 1993 informed the
Commission that a settlement had been reached. The settlement provides
that an application for costs by the applicant at the end of the
proceedings will be granted, and that the applicant agrees to withdraw
his application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings
against him.
The Commission notes that the applicant has come to an agreed
solution with the respondent Government and that he wishes to withdraw
his application.
The Commission concludes that this matter has been resolved and
that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the
meaning of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention. It further finds that
respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require
a continuation of the examination.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy