EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 19466/92
Herbert Wais
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 24 May 1995)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Herbert Wais against Austria on
20 December 1991. It was registered on 31 January 1992 under file
No. 19466/92.
The applicant was represented by Dr. K. Bernhauser, a lawyer
practising in Vienna. The Government of Austria were represented by
their Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, Head of the International Law
Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. On 2 September 1994, the Commission (First Chamber) declared the
applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings
against him admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to
it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an examination
of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the
effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of
the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights
as defined in this Convention."
3. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 24 May 1995 it adopted this
Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,
is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution
reached.
The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4. The applicant is an Austrian national. When lodging his
application, he was detained at a prison in Garsten.
5. In April 1986 information was laid against the applicant and
others on the suspicion of having committed fraud. On 3 September 1986
the applicant was questioned as suspect.
6. On 7 March 1989 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office preferred
the bill of indictment, charging the applicant with fraud on three
counts, and false testimony.
7. On 1 February 1990 the Vienna Regional Court opened the trial
against the applicant.
8. On 3 July 1991, following the taking of expert evidence, the
trial was resumed before the Vienna Regional Court. The Regional Court
convicted the applicant of fraud on three counts and of having given
false evidence in the course of civil proceedings. Taking into account
a previous prison sentence, the Court fixed a supplementary sentence
of four years' imprisonment.
9. On 10 July 1991 the Vienna Regional Court, as confirmed by the
Supreme Court on 11 September 1991, rejected the applicant's appeal on
points of law. On 29 October 1991 the Vienna Court of Appeal rejected
the applicant's appeal against the sentence.
10. The written version of the judgment of 3 July 1991 was finalised
on 7 February 1992.
11. The admissible part of the application related to the applicant's
complaint under Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention about the length
of the criminal proceedings against him.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
12. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
13. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
14. In their correspondence of 16 September and 28 October 1994, the
parties indicated their willingness to reach a friendly settlement.
15. By letter of 26 January 1995 the Government informed the
Commission that, in their opinion, a friendly settlement of the case
could by reached on the basis of the payment of a sum of money
amounting to AS 45,000. On 8 February 1995, the applicant's
representative informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the
Government's offer.
16. At its session on 24 May 1995, the Commission noted that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.
It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
17. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy