THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 74511/01 by Sholam WEISS against Austria

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 13 June 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr R. Türmen , Mr B. Zupančič , Mrs H.S. Greve , Mrs E. Steiner , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 August 2001,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 10 May 2002 and the decision of 16 May 2002 not to prolong the application of the interim measure as well as the decision of 23 May 2002 not to grant a renewd request for interim measures,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sholam Weiss, is a national of the United States of America and of Israel, who was born in 1954. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Gardner, a lawyer practising in London, and by Mr M. Winischhofer, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

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

On 1 November 1999 the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida convicted the applicant, who had been present during the evidentiary proceedings but had fled before the jury started its deliberations, of some eighty charges of aggravated fraud, embezzlement, fraudulent bankruptcy, membership in a criminal organisation and money laundering and on 15 February 2000 sentenced him to 845 years’ imprisonment. His appeal was rejected under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

On 24 October 2000 the applicant was arrested in Vienna and taken into detention with a view to his extradition.

On 11 September 2001 the Vienna Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant’s extradition was not admissible. Subsequently, the applicant was taken into detention on remand as criminal proceedings against him were opened in Austria.

On 9 April 2002 the Supreme Court, upon the Procurator General’s plea of nullity for the preservation of the law, set the Vienna Court of Appeal’s decision aside. Following this decision, the applicant was again taken into detention with a view to his extradition.

On 8 May 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant’s extradition was admissible in respect of all offences of which he had been convicted, except one.

On 10 May 2002 the Federal Minister of Justice authorised the applicant’s extradition. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 May 2002. Subsequently, the applicant has been extradited to the United States.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that his extradition to the United States would violate Article 3 of the Convention as he would have to serve an irreducible life sentence. He claims in particular that his conviction is final, that there is no possibility of release on parole under United States law and that the possibility of remission remains theoretical as it would only amount to a maximum of 15% of the sentence.

The applicant also complained that his extradition would violate Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, as his conviction was pronounced and his sentence imposed in absentia and no appeal was available to him.

The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention with a view to his extradition was unlawful, firstly, as his extradition would in itself be unlawful for the above reasons and, secondly, as the Supreme Court’s decision of 9 April 2002 was unlawful.

Finally, the applicant invoked Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 24 May 2002 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application.

The Court, therefore, notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 of the Convention, which so far as material, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ..

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require to continue the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President