CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 avril 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 }                          Application No. 20204/92                     by Adolf HOLZINGER                     against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   A. WEITZEL, President                C.L. ROZAKIS                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                E. KONSTANTINOV             Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 24 March 1992 by Adolf HOLZINGER against Austria and registered on 22 June 1992 under file No. 20204/92;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having regard to :   -     the Commission's decision of 1 December 1993 to communicate      the application ;   -     the settlement agreement submitted by the respondent      Government on 17 March 1994;   -     the applicant's letter of 24 March 1994 confirming that he      wished to withdraw the application;        Having deliberated,        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1954.   He lives in Hallein.   The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.        On 11 June 1986 the applicant's trustees brought a civil claim before the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht) against the Post Office Savings Bank for AS 5,100.57.   The Post Office Savings Bank requested that the proceedings be transferred to Vienna.        On 8 July 1987 the applicant brought three further sets of proceedings against the Post Office Savings Bank before the Salzburg District Court.        The applicant requested that the proceedings be pursued on 12 August 1987.        On 7 September 1987 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) rejected the application for transfer of the proceedings to Vienna.   On 6 November 1987 the applicant requested that the trial should begin.   On 19 January 1988 the judge suggested that the proceedings should not be continued.   The applicant gives no reasons for this.        On 9 May 1988 and on 8 July 1988 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be continued, and on 14 July 1988, by letter, the judge again suggested that the proceedings should be discontinued.   On 20 July 1988 the applicant requested the nomination of a bank specialist, and on 15 November 1988 applied for a new judge on the ground that the then judge was biased. The application was rejected on 22 November 1988.        On 27 February 1989 the third hearing took place.   It was adjourned to 10 April 1989.   On 4 April 1989 the applicant requested a different date for the third hearing.   The request was rejected on 7 April 1989.        On 15 August 1989 the applicant made a settlement proposal, and on 15 and 23 November 1989 he requested the hearing of certain witnesses.        On 27 December 1990 the applicant was heard by a judge in Hallein and, on 21 May 1991 he made a further request to the presiding judge at the Salzburg District Court.        On 13 November 1991 the applicant appeared before the judge in Salzburg.   The judge emphasised that there was no point in the applicant's continuing the proceedings as he had extremely little chance of success and would have to pay considerable costs.   The judge informed the applicant that the defendant had agreed not to pursue a claim for costs if the applicant withdrew his claims. The applicant did so.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that the proceedings lasted too long.   He also complains that the courts failed to respond to his various applications, that he, as plaintiff, was put to proof of his allegation (and could not therefore establish his claim), that his various settlement proposals were not accepted, and that witnesses were not heard.        He alleges violation of Articles 6 para. 1 and 6 para. 3 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 24 March 1992 and registered on 22 June 1992.        On 1 December 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings.        On 17 March 1994 the Government submitted a declaration by the parties in which the parties agreed that the Government would pay AS 25,000 to the applicant, and the applicant declared that the application was settled and that he would not make any further claims in connection with the application.        On 24 March 1994 the applicant confirmed that he wished to withdraw his application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the parties have come to an agreed solution to the case, and that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application.        The Commission finds that the matter has been resolved, and considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue examination of the application.        It follows that the application may be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                    (A. WEITZEL)