THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48481/99
by KURIER Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrL. Loucaides,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 17 March 1999 and registered on 1 June 1999,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the newspaper “Kurier”. It is represented before the Court by Mr H. Simon, a lawyer practising in Vienna.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The “Kurier”, in 1994 and 1995, published two articles about a certain Mr. B. who was suspected of being the person responsible for a series of letter bombs sent to politicians and other persons in the public eye in Austria. Each article was accompanied by a picture showing Mr B.
On 12 August 1998 the Supreme Court, confirming decisions of the Vienna Commercial Court in 1996 and the Vienna Court of Appeal in 1997, ordered the applicant company to pay AS 100,000 in compensation to Mr B. The court found that the applicant company had violated section 78 of the Copyright Act and was therefore liable for damages under section 87 of the same Act. The court considered that the article and the photographs had violated the presumption of innocence in insinuating that Mr B.’s guilt was not only suspected but was also certain.
COMPLAINT
The applicant company originally complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the articles only reflected the state of the investigations against Mr B. and that the sentence therefore violated its freedom of expression.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 13 February 2001, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had concluded a settlement with the Austrian Government and 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.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy