FINAL RESOLUTION DH (98) 200

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 20178/92

HENGL AGAINST AUSTRIA

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 1998

at the 637th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (97) 360, adopted on 11 July 1997 in the case of Hengl against Austria (Application No. 20178/92) in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 7 December 1997;

Whereas, at the 599th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held, by a decision adopted on 17 September 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of Austria was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, the sum of 45 000 Austrian schillings in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the sum of 45 000 Austrian schillings in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 90 000 Austrian schillings and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay (in accordance with the decision adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 599th meeting (17 September 1997) on the general principles regarding the payment of default interest) at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Austria to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 11 July 1997 and 17 September 1997, having regard to Austria’s obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Austria gave the Committee information about the measures taken following its decisions, this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Considering that there is no indication, in the circumstances of the present case, that the procedure mentioned by the Austrian Government according to which the sum awarded to the applicant as just satisfaction has been set off against debts owed by the applicant to the States, constitutes an interference with any of the applicant’s rights under the Convention,

Declares, having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 200

Information provided by the Government of Austria

during the examination of the Hengl case

before the Committee of Ministers

The report of the European Commission on Human Rights as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions adopted in this case have been transmitted to the authorities directly concerned in order to point out their obligations under the Convention.

With reference to the sum of 90 000 Austrian schillings awarded as just satisfaction (45 000 Austrian schillings for non-pecuniary damage and 45 000 Austrian schillings for costs and expenses), the Vienna Finanzprokuratur notified the applicant, on 12 December 1997, of the fact that it had set off 76 514 Austrian schillings of the just satisfaction against the State’s identical claim in accordance with a judgment from the Döbling Court (No. 1C1481/92g of 27 October 1993) and the remaining 13 486 Austrian schillings against part of a tax claim of over 5 000 000 Austrian schillings due for payment as from 1 January 1998. Those claims bear no relation with the violation found in the present case.