Search
document

Document text Analytics

HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20204/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1817

Document date: April 13, 1994

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

HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20204/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1817

Document date: April 13, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 20204/92

by Adolf HOLZINGER

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber)

sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being

present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 24 March 1992

by Adolf HOLZINGER against Austria and registered on 22 June 1992

under file No. 20204/92;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to :

- the Commission's decision of 1 December 1993 to communicate

the application ;

- the settlement agreement submitted by the respondent

Government on 17 March 1994;

- the applicant's letter of 24 March 1994 confirming that he

wished to withdraw the application;

Having deliberated,

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1954. He lives

in Hallein. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

On 11 June 1986 the applicant's trustees brought a civil

claim before the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht) against

the Post Office Savings Bank for AS 5,100.57. The Post Office

Savings Bank requested that the proceedings be transferred to

Vienna.

On 8 July 1987 the applicant brought three further sets of

proceedings against the Post Office Savings Bank before the

Salzburg District Court.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be pursued on

12 August 1987.

On 7 September 1987 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof)

rejected the application for transfer of the proceedings to

Vienna. On 6 November 1987 the applicant requested that the

trial should begin. On 19 January 1988 the judge suggested that

the proceedings should not be continued. The applicant gives no

reasons for this.

On 9 May 1988 and on 8 July 1988 the applicant asked for the

proceedings to be continued, and on 14 July 1988, by letter, the

judge again suggested that the proceedings should be

discontinued. On 20 July 1988 the applicant requested the

nomination of a bank specialist, and on 15 November 1988 applied

for a new judge on the ground that the then judge was biased.

The application was rejected on 22 November 1988.

On 27 February 1989 the third hearing took place. It was

adjourned to 10 April 1989. On 4 April 1989 the applicant

requested a different date for the third hearing. The request

was rejected on 7 April 1989.

On 15 August 1989 the applicant made a settlement proposal,

and on 15 and 23 November 1989 he requested the hearing of

certain witnesses.

On 27 December 1990 the applicant was heard by a judge in

Hallein and, on 21 May 1991 he made a further request to the

presiding judge at the Salzburg District Court.

On 13 November 1991 the applicant appeared before the judge

in Salzburg. The judge emphasised that there was no point in the

applicant's continuing the proceedings as he had extremely little

chance of success and would have to pay considerable costs. The

judge informed the applicant that the defendant had agreed not

to pursue a claim for costs if the applicant withdrew his claims.

The applicant did so.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the proceedings lasted too

long. He also complains that the courts failed to respond to his

various applications, that he, as plaintiff, was put to proof of

his allegation (and could not therefore establish his claim),

that his various settlement proposals were not accepted, and that

witnesses were not heard.

He alleges violation of Articles 6 para. 1 and 6 para. 3 of

the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 24 March 1992 and

registered on 22 June 1992.

On 1 December 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) decided

to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

complaint relating to the length of the proceedings.

On 17 March 1994 the Government submitted a declaration by

the parties in which the parties agreed that the Government would

pay AS 25,000 to the applicant, and the applicant declared that

the application was settled and that he would not make any

further claims in connection with the application.

On 24 March 1994 the applicant confirmed that he wished to

withdraw his application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the parties have come to an agreed

solution to the case, and that the applicant wishes to withdraw

his application.

The Commission finds that the matter has been resolved, and

considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the

Convention does not require it to continue examination of the

application.

It follows that the application may be struck out of the

list pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First

Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant