EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 26300/95
Kristian Zvonimir Raguz
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 9 December 1997)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
(paras. 1-3)
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
(paras. 4-6)
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . .1
(paras. 7-15)
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
(paras. 16-19)
APPENDIX: DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
I. THE PARTIES
1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30
para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by
Kristian Zvonimir Raguz against Austria.
2. The applicant was born in 1970. In the proceedings before the
Commission the applicant was represented by Mr. T. Prader.
3. The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent,
Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision
on admissibility of 10 April 1997, annexed hereto, and may be
summarised as follows:
5. On 4 November 1993 the Vienna Federal Police Authority, referring
to his conviction of robbery in 1992, imposed an unlimited residence
ban imposed upon the applicant, a national of former Yugoslavia
(Bosnia). His appeals were to no avail. Having served part of his
prison sentence, he was expelled in August 1994. At some stage he
reurned to Austria. He was arrested by the Austrian authorities on
17 August 1995, but released the next day. He continued to stay in
Austria.
6. Before the Commission, the applicant complains that the residence
ban amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his private and
family life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention.
III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
7. The application was introduced on 19 January and registered on
25 January 1995.
8. On 6 September 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided,
pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give
notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite
the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and
merits.
9. The Government's observations were submitted on 19 December 1995.
The applicant replied on 15 January 1996.
10. On 10 April 1997 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
11. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent
to the parties on 24 April 1997 and they were invited to submit such
further information or observations on the merits as they wished.
12. By letter of 20 August 1997, in the context of the friendly
settlement negotiations, the applicant expressed his concern that a
mere lifting of the residence prohibition would not remedy his
situation. He claimed in particular a residence permit and
reimbursement of his expenses incurred in the domestic and the
Commission proceedings.
13. By letter of 24 October 1997 the Government informed the
Commission that the residence ban imposed upon the applicant had been
lifted by decision of 9 September 1997. They further stated that it
was their understanding that the application could be terminated for
lack of grievance.
14. On 9 December 1997 the Commission decided to strike the present
application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30
para. 1 (b) of the Convention.
15. It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the
Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish
it. The following members of the Commission were present when the
Report was adopted:
Mrs J. LIDDY, President
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
16. The Commission notes that the residence prohibition which was
issued against the applicant in 1993 and which formed the basis of the
present application has been lifted.
17. The Commission further notes that the applicant was expelled in
August 1994, but returned to Austria some time later and continued to
stay there throughout the proceedings.
18. In the light of the above considerations, the Commission
concludes that the matter giving rise to the application has been
resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention.
19. Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the
Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect
for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the
further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1
in fine of the Convention. In particular it considers that the
question of the applicant's costs is not a matter which would require
continuation of the examination.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 26300/95 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;
ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;
DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and
the Parties for information, and to publish it.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy