EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
APPLICATION No. 12973/87
Franz MATHES
against
AUSTRIA
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 13 January 1992)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I THE PARTIES
(paras. 1 - 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
(paras. 3 - 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
(paras. 7 - 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 17 - 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
APPENDIX : Decision on the admissibility of the application 6
I. THE PARTIES
1. The present Report which was drawn up by the European
Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) in accordance with
Article 30 para. (1) (c) of the Convention, concerns the application
brought by Franz Mathes against Austria.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. C.
Prem, lawyer, Vienna.
The Austrian Government were represented before the Commission
by their Agent, Ambassador Helmut Türk, Head of the International
Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
3. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Decision
as to the admissibility of the application of 5 December 1990,
attached hereto as an Appendix (pp. 6 - 9).
4. The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as
follows:
5. Preliminary investigations were instituted against the
applicant in respect of knowing of improper transactions and aiding
and abetting fraud. On 16 June 1989 the prosecution requested that
the proceedings be suspended and a decision to this end was taken
pursuant to Article 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Strafprozeßordnung) on 29 June 1989. Proceedings under Article 412
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be re-opened at any time.
6. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings
against him and that an unreasonable criminal charge had been raised
against him.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
7. The application was introduced on 6 April 1987 and registered
on 6 June 1987.
8. On 6 July 1989 the Commission decided to communicate the
complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the respondent
Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) (former version) of its
Rules of Procedure, and to invite them to submit written
observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
9. The observations of the Government were submitted on 16
November 1989 and the applicant's reply on 27 April 1990.
10. On 7 November 1990 the Commission decided that the case should
be referred to the Second Chamber.
11. On 5 December 1990 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared
the application partly inadmissible and admissible as to the
complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.
12. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was
communicated on 16 January 1991 to the parties who were invited to
submit any additional observations or further evidence which they
wished to put before the Commission. No such observations were
received.
13. The Commission considered the state of the proceedings in the
case on 5 March 1991 and on 8 July 1991.
14. By letter of 2 October 1991 the Government informed the
Commission that the applicant had died in September 1991 and that,
consequently, the proceedings against the applicant had been
stopped. The applicant's representative was informed of the
Government's letter on 4 December 1991.
15. On 13 January 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to
strike the present application off its list, in accordance with
Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. It adopted the present
Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and
the Parties for information and to publish it.
16. The following members were present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
17. The Commission notes that the applicant has died.
18. The Commission recalls that successors of a deceased applicant
cannot claim a general right that the examination of an application
should be continued by the Commission (cf. No. 8261/77, Kofler v.
Italy, Comm. Report 9.10.82, D.R. 30 p. 5). The essential point is
whether, bearing in mind the nature of the particular application,
the successor can be considered to have sufficient interest to
justify the further examination of the application on his or her
behalf.
19. In the present case, the complaint related to the length of
the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Such an application
is closely linked to the person of the deceased applicant.
20. The Commission concludes, therefore, that it is no longer
justified to continue the examination of this application, within
the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention. It further
considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
does not require the continuation of the examination.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION NO. 12973/87 OFF ITS LIST OF
CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;
DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of
Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties'
representatives, and to publish it.
Secretary to the President of the
Second Chamber Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy