Application Nos. 17755/91, 17756/91 and
17757/91
by Franz ZEIDLER, Josef STRAUSS and
Rosa PUHM
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
7 December 1994, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 November 1990,
6 November 1990 and 6 November 1990 respectively by Franz ZEIDLER,
Josef STRAUSS and Rosa PUHM against Austria and registered on
5 February 1991 under Application Nos. 17755/91, 17756/91 and 17757/91;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 2 September 1991 that the
applications be joined and communicated to the respondent
Government, without requesting observations, pending the outcome
of Application No. 15220/89, Schneider v. Austria
- the informtion submitted by the respondent Government on
26 August 1994 and the information provided in reply submitted
by the applicants on 18 October 1994;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Austrian citizens, born in 1932, 1948 and 1909
respectively. They all live in Vienna and are represented before the
Commission by MM. Prader and Goeritz, lawyers practising in Vienna.
By letter of 14 August 1990, received on 20 August 1990, the
first applicant was informed by the Austrian Ministry for the Interior
(Bundesministerium für Inneres), in reply to his inquiry of 11 June
1990, that since 1951 the State police (Staatspolizei) had kept a
record of his activities which were of interest to them. It is stated
in the letter that, inter alia, in 1951 the applicant participated in
a world youth meeting in Berlin, that he was an active member of the
Free Austrian Youth Organisation (FÖJ), that in 1974 he married a
Hungarian, and that in 1987 he was a candidate for the Austrian
Communist Party (KPÖ) in municipal elections.
The second applicant states that, according to information given
by the Austrian Ministry for the Interior in a letter dated 12 April
1990, received on 7 May 1990, the State police had kept him under
secret surveillance for more than 20 years and had kept a record of his
politically oriented activities since 1959.
By letter of 28 April 1990, received on 16 May 1990, the third
applicant was informed by the Austrian Ministry for the Interior, in
reply to her inquiry of 3 March 1990, that since 1980 the State police
had kept a record of her politically oriented activities, going back
to 1933.
The applicants originally complained to the Commission that the
secret surveillance violated their rights under Articles 8 and 13 of
the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
On 2 September 1991 the Commission decided to communicate the
three applications to the respondent Government without, however,
requesting written observations on admissibility and merits, pending
the outcome of a similar application which had been communicated
previously, namely Application No. 15220/89, Schneider v. Austria. A
friendly settlement was reached in the latter case (Comm. Report
15.10.94). Subsequently, the parties to the present applications also
reached an agreement, the text of which was submitted by the respondent
Government on 26 August 1994. According to that agreement, which was
signed by the applicants, each of them receives a lump sum payment as
follows: AS 90,000 (Zeidler), AS 80,000 (Strauss) and AS 80,000 (Puhm).
The applicants in turn undertook to withdraw their applications after
receipt of the payment in question.
By letter of 18 October 1994 the applicants' lawyers informed the
Commission that their clients wished to withdraw their cases.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the parties have reached a financial
agreement and that, as a result, the applicants wish to withdraw their
cases.
The Commission finds that the applicants no longer intend to
pursue their petitions, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a)
of the Convention, and that there are no reasons of a general character
affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,
necessitating an examination of the cases ex officio pursuant to
Article 30 para. 1 in fine.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy