Search
document

Document text Analytics

BRUCKNER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21442/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45840

Document date: September 10, 1996

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

BRUCKNER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 21442/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45840

Document date: September 10, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 21442/93

Otto Bruckner

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 10 September 1996)

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 5

of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms by Otto Bruckner against Austria on

1 February 1993. It was registered on 26 February 1993 under file

No. 21442/93.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr. Hansjörg Kaltenbrunner,

lawyer, Linz. The Government of Austria were represented by their

Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department at

the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

3. The Commission took a partial decision on the admissibility of

the application on 18 October 1994. On 17 January 1996 the Commission

(First Chamber) declared the remainder of the application admissible.

The remaining part of the application concerns the applicant's

complaint about a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that his

conviction in administrative criminal proceedings was not accompanied

by the requisite procedural guarantees, in particular that the

Administrative Court was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

4. The Commission 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."

5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 September 1996 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.

6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1940 who lives in

Linz, was convicted in administrative criminal proceedings of failure

to comply with the legislation on periods of rest at work (for further

details see Dec. 18.10.94, D.R. 79-A p. 47). A penal order was issued

by the Mayor of Linz on 19 July 1990. The applicant was fined

AS 3,000.00, with three days' detention in default.

8. The applicant's appeal to the Upper Austrian Provincial Governor

(Landeshauptmann) was rejected on 30 July 1991.

9. On 9 July 1992 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

dismissed the applicant's administrative complaint.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

10. Following the final 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.

11. 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.

12. In the light of the applicant's letter of 23 February 1996 and

the respondent Government's request for settlement proposal, the

Commission on 16 April 1996 considered that payment by the Government

of the sum of AS 50,000 to the applicant would represent an appropriate

settlement of the present case.

13. Settlement declarations to that effect were submitted by the

applicant on 22 May 1996 and by the Government on 16 July 1996.

14. At its session on 10 September 1996, 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.

15. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant