THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17984/02
by Gustav WURM
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 June 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Gustav Wurm, is an Austrian national, who was born in 1930 and lives in Bad Goisern (Austria). He is represented before the Court by Mr Rinner, a lawyer practising in Linz (Austria).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant runs a tanning factory in Upper Austria.
In 1990 the Wels Regional Court instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, the applicant’s wife (L.W.) and three other accused. He was suspected of intentionally causing damage to the environment, of continuous aggravated fraud (schwerer gewerbsmässiger Betrug) and of attempted incitement to give false testimony (falsche Beweisaussage).
On 19 September 1996 the Public Prosecutor preferred the bill of indictment against the applicant, his wife and the other three accused.
On forty six days between 21 January and 20 October 1999 the Regional Court held trial hearings. On the last-mentioned date the Regional Court convicted the applicant of continuous aggravated fraud and of attempted incitement to give false testimony and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment on probation. L.W. was acquitted.
The proceedings against the applicant concerning the charge of intentionally causing damage to the environment were continued separately.
On 9 January 2001 the Supreme Court partly allowed the applicant’s plea of nullity and partly remitted the case to the Regional Court. The conviction as regards the attempted incitement to give false testimony became final.
On 4 July, 12 September and 7 November 2001 the Regional Court held hearings concerning the charge of intentionally causing damage to the environment.
On 22 October 2001 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings concerning continuous aggravated fraud as the Public Prosecutor withdraw the indictment.
Subsequently, the Regional Court fixed a date for a hearing for 30 November 2001. However, this hearing was cancelled and the proceedings were adjourned until 6 March 2002 due the applicant’s state of health.
On 6 March 2002 the Regional Court determined the sentence as regards the applicant’s conviction of attempted incitement to give false testimony and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. On 8 May 2002 the Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant’s appeal and reduced the sentence to three months’ imprisonment suspended on probation.
The proceedings concerning the charge of intentionally causing damage to the environment are still pending but remain adjourned as the applicant is currently not capable of pleading due to his heart disease.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court reiterates the terms of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention which, so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ..
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court finds that the applicant’s failure to comply with the Court’s request to submit observations in reply before 6 February 2003, and to react to its further letter of 26 February 2003, leads to the conclusion that the applicant, assisted by counsel, does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation of the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Mark VilligerGeorg Ress
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy