Search
document

Document text Analytics

RAGUZ v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 26300/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45950

Document date: December 9, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

RAGUZ v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 26300/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45950

Document date: December 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant