THIRD SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 30427/96
by Christian HECKER
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 23 October 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja, judges,
and MrT.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 February 1996 and registered on 13 March 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the partial decision of 5 September 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Christian Hecker, is a German national, born in 1942 and living in Germany. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Reisch, a lawyer practising in Kitzbühel (Austria).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 December 1973 the applicant concluded a tenancy agreement (Mietvertrag) with the owner of an apartment in the Tyrol (hereafter referred to as P.). In 1978 the agreement was entered in the Land Registry.
In 1979 the owner, in a codicil (Kodizill) to his will, conferred the apartment as a legacy to the applicant. After P. died in 1983 in a car accident, the applicant requested a declaration from the Kitzbühel Real Property Transaction Authority (Grundverkehrsbehörde) that the transfer of property did not require that authority’s consent. On 18 December 1990 a so-called “negative declaration” was issued.
On 10 April 1992, upon an appeal lodged by the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Officer (Landesgrundverkehrsreferent), the Regional Real Property Transactions Authority (Landesgrundverkehrsbehörde) quashed the decision. It found that the legacy was a transaction intended to circumvent the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Act (Umgehungsgeschäft) and was therefore void.
On 19 October 1992 the Real Property Transactions Officer filed an action with the Innsbruck Regional Court against the applicant, requesting the court to declare void (Feststellung der Nichtigkeit) the 1973 tenancy. On 4 November 1993 the Regional Court granted that request, finding that the contract of 1973 had been intended to grant the applicant a legal position similar to that of ownership.
Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 17 February 1994, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court’s judgment. On 13 July 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decisions of the Austrian courts, declaring void the tenancy he had concluded in 1973, violated his right to property, as their effects amounted to an expropriation which was not justified in any public interest and was enforced without compensation.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 12 September 2001, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant did not wish to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).
In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy