CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 avril 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          FIRST CHAMBER                      Application No. 16103/90                                N. H.                                 against                               AUSTRIA                      DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 8 April 1992)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                          Page     INTRODUCTION ..........................................1       PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.......................2       PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED.............................3                            INTRODUCTION     1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by H. against Austria on 30 November 1989.   It was registered on 30 January 1990 under file No. 16103/90.        The applicant was represented by Mr. K. Wandl, a lawyer practising in St. Pölten.        The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Mr. N. Scherk, Deputy Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vienna.   2.    On 31 May 1991 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application admissible insofar as it related to the length of the divorce proceedings.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred       to it:        a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake         together with the representatives of the parties an        examination of the petition and, if need be, an         investigation, for the effective conduct of which the         States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,         after an exchange of views with the Commission;        b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of         the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly         settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human         Rights as defined in this Convention."   3.    The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 April 1992 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.        The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             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                                               PART I                           STATEMENT OF FACTS     4.    The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1942 and resident at St. Pölten.   5.    On 21 November 1978 the applicant brought divorce proceedings.        After extensive taking of evidence, a divorce judgment was given on 10 October 1983.   This judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was sent back to the first instance court which on 26 November 1984, having taken further evidence, gave a new divorce judgment.   It was again quashed on 29 April 1985.   On 1 July 1988 a third divorce judgment was given and confirmed on appeal.   The parties' pleas on nullity were rejected on 20 April 1989 by the Supreme Court.   6.    Before the Commission the applicant complained of the length of the divorce proceedings and also alleged that before the appellate court he was not given a fair hearing.   He invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.                                       PART II                            SOLUTION REACHED     7.    Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   8.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   9.    By letter of 31 October 1991 the Agent of the Government proposed payment of AS 70,000 as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Commission by way of friendly settlement.   10.   On 16 December 1991 the applicant's counsel stated that this proposal for a friendly settlement was accepted by his client.   11.   At its session on 8 April 1992, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   12.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber             (M. de SALVIA)                         (J.A. FROWEIN)