Application No. 12700/87
by Franz HOLLITZER
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 12 March 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 16 December 1986
by Franz Hollitzer against Austria and registered on 22 January 1987
under file No. 12700/87;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to :
- the Commission's decision of 12 October 1988 to bring
the application to the notice of the respondent Government
and invite them to submit written observations on its
admissibility and merits;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
13 January 1989, the observations in reply submitted
by the applicant on 13 March 1989 and his declaration
of 18 January 1990 that he wishes to withdraw the
application;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1927 who resides
in Vienna, is represented by Rechtsanwalt Dr. Hans Pritz of
Vienna.
He complained of a measure of rent reduction imposed on him as
the landlord of a small apartment in the centre of Vienna.
Under Section 44 of the Rent Act which entered into force on 1
January 1982 (Mietrechtsgesetz, Fed. Law Gazette No. 520/1981) the
tenant of the above apartment requested a reduction of her freely
negotiated rent of AS 2,770 to 150% of the legal square metre rent for
class B apartments (AS 673,20) as from 1 February 1982. The request
was granted by the competent Arbitration Board (Schlichtungsstelle) of
the City of Vienna on 22 April 1983 and subsequently by the District
Court of Vienna City (Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien) on 10 August
1985.
The applicant's appeal (Rekurs) was dismissed by the Vienna
Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) on 17 June
1986. Referring to a Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) decision of
3 July 1984 (5 Ob 86/83=SZ 57/125) it rejected inter alia the
applicant's submission that Section 44 of the 1981 Rent Act was
unconstitutional.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the rent reduction
violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as
guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS
The application was introduced on 16 December 1986 and
registered on 22 January 1987.
On 12 October 1988 the Commission decided to give notice of
the application to the respondent Government and to invite them,
pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to submit
observations in writing on its admissibility and merits.
The Government submitted their observations on 13 January 1989
and the applicant replied on 13 March 1989.
The case was not further considered by the Commission pending
the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Mellacher
and Others which concerned analogous rent reductions under Section 44
of the 1981 Rent Act. In its judgment of 19 December 1989 (to be
published in Series A no. 169) the Court held that such rent
reductions did not violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
On 20 December 1989 the applicant was informed of this
judgment and invited to state whether he wished to maintain his
application. On 18 January 1990 he replied that he did not wish to
pursue it.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention reads as follows:
"The Commission may at any stage of the proceedings decide
to strike a petition out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that:
a. the applicant does not intend to pursue his
petition, or
b. the matter has been resolved, or
c. for any other reason established by the Commission,
it is no longer justified to continue the
examination of the petition.
However, the Commission shall continue the examination of a
petition if respect for Human Rights as defined in this
Convention so requires."
The Commission notes the applicant's declaration that in the
light of the Eur. Court H.R. Mellacher and Others judgment of
19 December 1989 (to be published in Series A no. 169) he does not
wish to pursue his application.
The Commission finds no reasons of a general character
affecting the observance of the Convention which would require a
further examination of the present application.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy