CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 mars 1994

.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 }      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   FIRST CHAMBER   Application No. 13811/88   A. and L.E.   and others   against   Austria   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 8 March 1994)   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 A. and L.E. and others against Austria on 14 January 1988.   It was registered on 29 April 1988 under file No. 13811/88.         The applicants were represented by Mr. R. Wandl, a lawyer practising in Sankt Pölten.         The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 31 May 1991 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared admissible the applicants' complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention relating to the length of the proceedings.   It 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 (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 March 1994 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.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The three applicant couples are Austrian nationals residing at Obritzberg, Lower Austria.   They are partly the persons, partly legal successors of the persons who brought Application No. 9273/81 which lead to the European Court of Human Right's judgment of 23 April 1987 (Eur. Court H.R., Ettl judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117). In this judgment the Court found that the organisation of the agricultural authorities before which land consolidation proceedings under the Lower Austrian Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungsgesetz) were conducted in respect of the applicants' land was not in violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   The present case concerns the same proceedings.   The applicants now complain of their length.   5.     On 30 July 1973 the Lower Austrian Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) issued a consolidation plan for Obritzberg which included the applicant's land.   On 27 August 1973 the applicant's appealed to the Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat) which decided on 26 and 27 May 1975 on the appeal. On 6 October 1976 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) partially allowed the applicant's appeal.   On 1 and 28 February and 19 March 1980 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) rejected the applicant's complaint against the Supreme Land Reform Board and on 11 and 25 November 1980 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) to which the case had been referred quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board's decision on the consolidation plan.   6.     Proceedings were resumed before the Supreme Land Reform Board which remitted the case on 3 March 1982 to the Agricultural District Authority, which took a new decision on 27 March 1985.   On 1 July 1986 the Provincial Land Reform Board partly allowed the applicants' appeals and referred the case back to the Agricultural District Authority.   On 19 July and 11 October 1988 the Agricultural District Authority decided again.   On 19 December 1989 the Regional Land Reform Board decided on the applicants' appeals.   7.     While two applicant couples did not lodge any further remedies against the Regional Land Reform Board's decision the applicant couple E. complained to the Constitutional Court, which on 27 June 1990 refused to deal with the complaint.   On 12 March 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed the further complaint.   8.     On 22 April 1992 the Agricultural District Authority issued a new consolidation plan for Obritzberg after the former one had been quashed by the Administrative Court on 11 and 25 November 1980.   It appears that proceedings are still pending.   9.     Before the Commission the applicants complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the land consolidation proceedings.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   10.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission 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.   11.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary of the Commission, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   12.    In the light of the response of parties, the Commission decided to invite the parties to a meeting in Vienna on 14 February 1994 with a view to discussing the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement. At the meeting, the Commission was represented by Mr. Ermarcora as Delegate, the Secretary to the Commission and other members of the Secretariat. As a result of the negotiations, the parties reached agreement in the terms set out below. This agreement was confirmed by the parties by letters of 3 and 7 March 1994 respectively.   13.    <Translation>         "Statements of the parties with a view to a friendly settlement         With reference to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the parties in the proceedings concerning Application No. 13811/88, lodged by the applicants E. and others, declare with a view to a friendly settlement, reached with assistance of the European Commission of Human Rights, as follows:         1.    The Government of the Republic of Austria will pay to each       applicant couple a sum of AS 200,000 as compensation in respect       of any possible claims relating to the present application, as       well as AS 50,000 in respect of costs incurred in the domestic       proceedings.         2.    A lump sum of AS 70,000 will be payed in respect of costs       incurred in the proceedings before the Commission.         3.    The applicants declare their application settled.         4.    The applicants waive any further claims against the       Republic of Austria before domestic or national instances       relating to the facts underlying the present application, which       exclusively concerns the length of the domestic proceedings up       to the time of the friendly settlement."   <German>         "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung         In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13811/88 des Beschwerdeführer E. u.a. verständigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel 28 Abs. 1 der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter Mitwirkung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die nachstehende gütliche Regelung:         1.    Die Regierung der Republik Österreich zahlt jedem       beschwerdeführenden Paar als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaige       Ansprüche im Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden       Individualbeschwerde einen Betrag von öS 200.000 sowie öS 50.000       hinsichtlich der Kosten des Innerstaatlichen Verfahrens.         2.    Zum Ausgleich der Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens werden       insgesamt öS 70.000 gezahlt.         3.    Die Beschwerdeführer erklären ihre oben genannte Beschwerde       als erledigt.         4.    Die Beschwerdeführer verzichten auf die Geltendmachung       allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen Österreich vor nationalen       oder internationalen Instanzen im Zusammenhang mit dem der       Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden Sachverhalt, der ausschliesslich die       Dauer des innerstaatlichen Verfahrens bis zum Vergleichsabschluss       betrifft."   14.    At its session on 8 March 1994, 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.   15.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the First Chamber      President of the First Chamber         (M. F. BUQUICCHIO)                   (A. WEITZEL)