FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41447/05
by Harald Peter EISENBERGER
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Harald Peter Eisenberger, is an Austrian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bürmoos. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Postlmayr, a lawyer practising in Mattighofen.
The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Tauttmansdorff, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 June 1998 the Salzburg-Umgebung District Administrative Authority issued a penal order finding the applicant inter alia guilty of drunken driving contrary to Section 5 § 1 and 99 § 1 (a) of the Road Traffic Act.
By decision of 18 February 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 26 January 2000 the Administrative Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the Independent Administrative Panel to take further expert opinions.
On 14 June 2000 the Independent Administrative Panel, after having held two hearings, confirmed the District Administrative Authority’s decision. On 28 November 2000 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint and on 6 September 2005 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 28 September 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of proceedings against him. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he complained that he did not have an effective remedy in this respect.
The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 6 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Austria offer to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,500 to Harald Peter Eisenberger with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 19 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I note that the Government of Austria are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,500 to Harald Peter Eisenberger with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy