Search
document

Document text Analytics

B.F. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18350/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1432

Document date: December 2, 1992

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

B.F. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18350/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1432

Document date: December 2, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 18350/91

by B.F.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 21 December 1990

by B.F. against Austria and registered on 13 June 1991 under file No.

18350/91;

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 applicant is a German citizen born in 1967 and living in

Vienna. She is represented by Mr. Thomas Prader, a lawyer in Vienna.

It follows from the statements and the documents submitted that

on 14 December 1985 the applicant and four other persons were arrested

for having participated in an unauthorised demonstration. She was kept

by the police for several hours.

On 10 April 1986, the public prosecutor filed an indictment

accusing the applicant of having caused grievous bodily harm and having

offered resistance to public officials.

A first oral hearing took place before the Vienna Regional Court

(Landesgericht) on 12 June 1986. At this hearing, the defence named

several witnesses and was requested to indicate their addresses within

two weeks. At the same hearing, a television film of the demonstration

was examined. It is stated in the minutes of the hearing that the

applicant had been summoned but did not appear. On 6 May 1987, the

trial continued and the applicant, who was then present, requested that

the film which had been shown at the previous hearing be examined

again. Furthermore witness M. was heard while five other witnesses who

had been summoned at the request of the applicant did not appear. The

applicant was again requested to indicate the exact names and addresses

of these witnesses within two weeks.

At a hearing of 13 April 1989, two police officers named by the

prosecution and four witnesses named by the defence were heard while

five other summoned defence witnesses did not appear.

On 8 May 1989, the applicant was convicted of attempted

resistance against State officials, but acquitted on the charge of

grievous bodily harm. In accordance with section 13 of the Juvenile

Court Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz) sentence was reserved for a period of

probation of 3 years.

On 15 May 1990, the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht)

rejected the applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde).

However, partially granting her appeal, it reduced the period of

probation to one year.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant has complained of the length of the criminal

proceedings against her. She has submitted that even if she did not

indicate the names and addresses of her witnesses, it would have been

the task of the court and the prosecuting authorities to find out the

whereabouts of these witnesses by way of police investigations and to

see to it that they be summoned in order to terminate the proceedings

as quickly as possible.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 21 December 1990 and registered

on 13 June 1991. On 13 February 1992, the Commission (Second Chamber)

decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for

observations on its admissibility and merits. The respondent

Government submitted their observations on 9 July 1992. By letter of

17 September 1992, the applicant's counsel stated that the applicant

wished to withdraw her application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

As the application has been withdrawn, the Commission concludes

that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. It finds

no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention necessitating an examination of the application ex officio.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously,

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

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant