Search
document

Document text Analytics

H. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 16103/90 • ECHR ID: 001-45515

Document date: April 8, 1992

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

H. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 16103/90 • ECHR ID: 001-45515

Document date: April 8, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 16103/90

N. H.

against

AUSTRIA

DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 April 1992)

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 H. against Austria on 30 November 1989. It was

registered on 30 January 1990 under file No. 16103/90.

The applicant was represented by Mr. K. Wandl, a lawyer

practising in St. Pölten.

The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent,

Mr. N. Scherk, Deputy Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Vienna.

2. On 31 May 1991 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application admissible insofar as it related to the length of the

divorce proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared

inadmissible. 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."

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 8 April 1992 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. J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

PART I

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1942 and resident

at St. Pölten.

5. On 21 November 1978 the applicant brought divorce proceedings.

After extensive taking of evidence, a divorce judgment was given

on 10 October 1983. This judgment was quashed on appeal and the case

was sent back to the first instance court which on 26 November 1984,

having taken further evidence, gave a new divorce judgment. It was

again quashed on 29 April 1985. On 1 July 1988 a third divorce

judgment was given and confirmed on appeal. The parties' pleas on

nullity were rejected on 20 April 1989 by the Supreme Court.

6. Before the Commission the applicant complained of the length of

the divorce proceedings and also alleged that before the appellate

court he was not given a fair hearing. He invoked Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

7. Following its 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.

8. 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.

9. By letter of 31 October 1991 the Agent of the Government proposed

payment of AS 70,000 as well as the costs of the proceedings before the

Commission by way of friendly settlement.

10. On 16 December 1991 the applicant's counsel stated that this

proposal for a friendly settlement was accepted by his client.

11. At its session on 8 April 1992, 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.

12. For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant