A., L.E. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Doc ref: 13811/88 • ECHR ID: 001-45637
Document date: March 8, 1994
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 1 Outbound citations:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 13811/88
A. and L.E.
and others
against
Austria
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 8 March 1994)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 A. and L.E. and others against
Austria on 14 January 1988. It was registered on 29 April 1988 under
file No. 13811/88.
The applicants were represented by Mr. R. Wandl, a lawyer
practising in Sankt Pölten.
The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent,
Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at
the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. On 31 May 1991 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared
admissible the applicants' complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention relating to the length of the proceedings. 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 8 March 1994 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:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4. The three applicant couples are Austrian nationals residing at
Obritzberg, Lower Austria. They are partly the persons, partly legal
successors of the persons who brought Application No. 9273/81 which
lead to the European Court of Human Right's judgment of 23 April 1987
(Eur. Court H.R., Ettl judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117).
In this judgment the Court found that the organisation of the
agricultural authorities before which land consolidation proceedings
under the Lower Austrian Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungsgesetz) were
conducted in respect of the applicants' land was not in violation of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. The present case concerns the
same proceedings. The applicants now complain of their length.
5. On 30 July 1973 the Lower Austrian Agricultural District
Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) issued a consolidation plan for
Obritzberg which included the applicant's land. On 27 August 1973 the
applicant's appealed to the Regional Land Reform Board
(Landesagrarsenat) which decided on 26 and 27 May 1975 on the appeal.
On 6 October 1976 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat)
partially allowed the applicant's appeal. On 1 and 28 February and
19 March 1980 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)
rejected the applicant's complaint against the Supreme Land Reform
Board and on 11 and 25 November 1980 the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) to which the case had been referred quashed
the Supreme Land Reform Board's decision on the consolidation plan.
6. Proceedings were resumed before the Supreme Land Reform Board
which remitted the case on 3 March 1982 to the Agricultural District
Authority, which took a new decision on 27 March 1985. On 1 July 1986
the Provincial Land Reform Board partly allowed the applicants' appeals
and referred the case back to the Agricultural District Authority. On
19 July and 11 October 1988 the Agricultural District Authority decided
again. On 19 December 1989 the Regional Land Reform Board decided on
the applicants' appeals.
7. While two applicant couples did not lodge any further remedies
against the Regional Land Reform Board's decision the applicant couple
E. complained to the Constitutional Court, which on 27 June 1990
refused to deal with the complaint. On 12 March 1991 the
Administrative Court dismissed the further complaint.
8. On 22 April 1992 the Agricultural District Authority issued a new
consolidation plan for Obritzberg after the former one had been quashed
by the Administrative Court on 11 and 25 November 1980. It appears
that proceedings are still pending.
9. Before the Commission the applicants complained under
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the land
consolidation proceedings.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
10. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission 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 Secretary of the
Commission, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the
parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
12. In the light of the response of parties, the Commission decided
to invite the parties to a meeting in Vienna on 14 February 1994 with
a view to discussing the possibilities of reaching a friendly
settlement. At the meeting, the Commission was represented by
Mr. Ermarcora as Delegate, the Secretary to the Commission and other
members of the Secretariat. As a result of the negotiations, the
parties reached agreement in the terms set out below. This agreement
was confirmed by the parties by letters of 3 and 7 March 1994
respectively.
13. "Statements of the parties with a view to a friendly settlement
With reference to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
the parties in the proceedings concerning Application No. 13811/88,
lodged by the applicants E. and others, declare with a view to a
friendly settlement, reached with assistance of the European Commission
of Human Rights, as follows:
1. The Government of the Republic of Austria will pay to each
applicant couple a sum of AS 200,000 as compensation in respect
of any possible claims relating to the present application, as
well as AS 50,000 in respect of costs incurred in the domestic
proceedings.
2. A lump sum of AS 70,000 will be payed in respect of costs
incurred in the proceedings before the Commission.
3. The applicants declare their application settled.
4. The applicants waive any further claims against the
Republic of Austria before domestic or national instances
relating to the facts underlying the present application, which
exclusively concerns the length of the domestic proceedings up
to the time of the friendly settlement."
"Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung
In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13811/88 des Beschwerdeführer E.
u.a. verständigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf
Artikel 28 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der
Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter Mitwirkung der
Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die nachstehende
gütliche Regelung:
1. Die Regierung der Republik Österreich zahlt jedem
beschwerdeführenden Paar als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaige
Ansprüche im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden
Individualbeschwerde einen Betrag von öS 200.000 sowie öS 50.000
hinsichtlich der Kosten des Innerstaatlichen Verfahrens.
2. Zum Ausgleich der Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens werden
insgesamt öS 70.000 gezahlt.
3. Die Beschwerdeführer erklären ihre oben genannte Beschwerde
als erledigt.
4. Die Beschwerdeführer verzichten auf die Geltendmachung
allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen Österreich vor nationalen
oder internationalen Instanzen im Zusammenhang mit dem der
Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden Sachverhalt, der ausschliesslich die
Dauer des innerstaatlichen Verfahrens bis zum Vergleichsabschluss
betrifft."
14. At its session on 8 March 1994, 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 this Report.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M. F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)