Search
document

Document text Analytics

M. v. LIECHTENSTEIN

Doc ref: 16705/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1497

Document date: February 10, 1993

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

M. v. LIECHTENSTEIN

Doc ref: 16705/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1497

Document date: February 10, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 16705/90

by W.M.

against Liechtenstein

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 February 1993, the following members being present:

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

G.B. REFFI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the First 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 29 May 1990 by

W.M. against Liechtenstein and registered on 11 June 1990 under file

No. 16705/90;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Liechtenstein national, born in 1934 and

residing in Vaduz. By profession he is a lawyer. Before the

Commission he is represented by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer

practising in Bregenz (Austria).

Following a report by a judge dealing with bankruptcy proceedings

(Konkursrichter) the public prosecutor requested on 19 July 1983 the

institution of preliminary investigations (Vorerhebungen) against the

applicant and two other suspects.

On 26 March 1984 the public prosecutor requested the opening of

a formal investigation (Einleitung der Untersuchung) against the

applicant and three other suspects on the suspicion of having committed

fraudulent bankruptcy (betrügerische Krida) of a company and breach of

trust (Untreue).

On 30 May 1984 the investigating judge granted the public

prosecutor's request and on 11 July 1984 issued a written decision

which was subsequently served on the applicant. The applicant's appeal

against the decision of the investigating judge was dismissed by the

High Court (Obergericht) on 12 September 1984.

On 9 February 1987 the public prosecutor brought an application

for prosecution in simplified proceedings (Strafantrag im vereinfachten

Verfahren) against the applicant, and against the former sole member

of the board of directors (Verwaltungsrat) of the company and the he

liquidator of the company for an offence against the security of

property (Vergehen gegen die Sicherheit des Eigentums).

On 10, 11 and 26 August 1987 hearings were held before a single

judge of the Court of Justice (Landgericht). Judgment was delivered

on 28 August 1987. On 6 April 1988 the judgment was made out in

writing and served on the applicant. The liquidator was convicted

under Section 486 para. 2 (g) of the Penal Code of having tried, at a

time when it was known to him that the liabilities exceeded the assets,

to delay the opening of bankruptcy proceedings by squandering the stock

of goods and equipment of the company thus causing pecuniary damage to

its creditors. The applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting him

and sentenced to four months' imprisonment on probation with a

probationary period of two years.

On 18 January 1989 the High Court dismissed the applicant's plea

of nullity (Berufung wegen Nichtigkeit und wegen des Ausspruches über

die Schuld) but reduced the sentence to two months' imprisonment.

On 14 April 1989 the applicant lodged a complaint (Beschwerde)

with the Court of State (Staatsgerichtshof) invoking Article 6 paras.

1 and 2 of the Convention.

On 24 April 1989 the High Court submitted its observations.

On 3 November 1989 the Court of State dismissed the applicant's

complaint.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention

that by applying Section 486 of the Penal Code, a provision containing

a reversal of the burden of proof to the disadvantage of the accused,

the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated. As a

consequence he had also not received a fair trial and had been

convicted contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

The applicant further complains that the proceedings had not been

conducted within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 29 May 1990 and registered on

11 June 1990.

On 14 October 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and to ask for written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in so

far as it concerns the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention about the length of proceedings.

By letter dated 7 January 1993, the applicant's lawyer informed

the Secretariat that he had received instruction by the applicant to

withdraw the application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant wishes to withdraw his

application.

The applicant therefore no longer intends to pursue his

application within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the

Convention. The Commission further considers that respect for Human

Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the

examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 30 para.

1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

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

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant