Search
document

Document text Analytics

MEIER-SAX v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 12421/86 • ECHR ID: 001-45435

Document date: October 7, 1988

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

MEIER-SAX v. SWITZERLAND

Doc ref: 12421/86 • ECHR ID: 001-45435

Document date: October 7, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 12421/86

Paul and Gerda MEIER-SAX

against

Switzerland

Report of the Commission

(Adopted on 7 October 1988)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1 - 3) 1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4 - 5) 1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 6 - 12) 1

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 13 - 15) 3

APPENDIX: Decision on Admissibility 4 - 20

I. THE PARTIES&S

1. This Report, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance

with Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, concerns the application

brought by Paul and Gerda Meier-Sax against Switzerland.

2. The applicants were represented before the Commission by

Mr. L.A. Minelli, a lawyer practising at Forch / Switzerland.

3. The Swiss Government was represented before the Commission by

their Agent, Mr. O. Jacot-Guillarmod, Head of the Service of

International Affairs of the Federal Office of Justice.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS&S

4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Decision

as to the admissibility of the application of 11 May 1988, attached

hereto as an Appendix (pp. 4 - 20).

5. The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as

follows:

The applicants who were renting an apartment near a military

shooting site were disturbed by the noise. They asked on 30 March

1984 the Federal Military Department to request the competent Federal

Assessment Commission to institute expropriation proceedings. The

Federal Military Department refused to do so, stating inter alia, that

the noise levels were not excessive. The applicants thereupon filed

on 29 June 1984 an administrative law appeal with the Federal Court

which on 18 June 1986 upheld the appeal and ordered the Federal

Military Department to institute the expropriation proceedings in

question. The reasons of the decision were served on 19 September

1986. Expropriation proceedings then commenced before the Federal

Assessment Commission.

Before the Commission the applicants complained under

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings

before the Federal Court, lasting approximately 27 months after the

appeal was filed.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S

6. The present application was introduced on 26 May 1986 and

registered on 30 September 1986. On 8 May 1987 the Commission decided

to give notice of the application to the respondent Government in

accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to

request the parties' written observations.

7. On 14 July 1987 the respondent Government submitted their

observations. The applicants' reply was submitted on 30 September 1987.

8. On 11 May 1988 the Commission declared the application

admissible. On 13 May and 9 June 1988 the parties were invited,

pursuant to Rule 45 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, to submit

supplementary observations on certain questions put by the

Commission.

9. The applicants submitted their supplementary observations

on 9 June 1988.

10. On 19 July 1988 the respondent Government informed the

Commission of a decision of the Federal Assessment Commission of 5

July 1988 according to which the applicants and the Swiss

Confederation, acting through the Federal Military Department, had

reached a settlement, and that as one condition of this settlement the

applicants would withdraw their Application No. 12421/86 pending

before the Commission. On 17 August 1988 the applicants informed the

Commission that in view of the settlement achieved they had lost

interest in pursuing the said Application.

11. By letter of 2 September 1988 the respondent Government were

consulted, in accordance with Rule 49 para. 2 of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure, as to striking the present application off the

Commission's list of cases.

12. On 7 October 1988, the Commission decided to strike the

present application off its list, in accordance with Rules 44

para. 1 (a) of its Rules of Procedure. 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 were

present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION&S

13. The Commission notes that the applicants have expressly stated

that they have lost interest in pursuing their Application No. 12421/86.

14. The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicants no longer

wish their case to be examined, and further considers that there are

no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which warrant further examination of the application.

15. For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to Rules 44

para. 1 (a), 49 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

- decides to strike Application No. 12421/86 off its list;

- adopts the present Report;

- decides to send the present Report to the Committee of

Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties,

and to publish it.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant