CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 septembre 1995

.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                                SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 18273/91                          Estate of Johanna GEYER                                   against                                   Austria                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 6 September 1995)                              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 the Estate of Johanna Geyer against Austria on 17 May 1991.   It was registered on 28 May 1991 under file No. 18273/91.         The applicant estate was represented by Mr. K. Meingast, a lawyer practising in Gmundes (Austria).         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 13 October 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to adjourn its examination of the applicant estate's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention relating to the length of the enforcement proceedings and the complaint under Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its right to property was violated and declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   On 17 January 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared admissible the remaining complaints.   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 (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 6 September 1995 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:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The application was introduced by the estate of Mrs. Johanna Geyer. Mrs. Geyer, born in 1914, was an Austrian national who died in 1991.   She resided in Steyrermühl (Austria).   5.     On 28 June 1974 the Upper Austria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) expropriated land owned by Mrs. Geyer and her husband, who died on 25 May 1987, for the purpose of constructing a new road.   On 18 November 1974 the Federal Minister for Construction and Technique (Bundesminister für Bauten und Technik) dismissed Mrs. Geyer's and her husband's appeal against the expropriation order.   6.     On 4 December 1985 the District Administrative Authority issued an enforcement order against Mrs. Geyer instructing her to transfer possession of the land to the Federal Roads Administration (Bundesstraßenverwaltung).   On 23 January 1986 the Regional Governor dismissed Mrs. Geyer's appeal.   On 12 February 1986 the Federal Roads Administration took possession of Mrs. Geyer's and her husband's land. On 10 March 1986 Mrs. Geyer lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) and requested it to grant suspensive effect to her complaint.   On 21 August 1986 the Administrative Court decided not to grant suspensive effect to the complaint.   On 19 October 1990 the Administrative Court quashed the Regional Governor's decision of 23 January 1986, finding that the expropriation order was not sufficiently clear and that enforcement proceedings relying on such a decision were inadmissible.   On 3 December 1990 the Regional Governor quashed the District Administrative Authority's enforcement order.   7.     Between 1985 and 1989 Mrs. Geyer unsuccessfully conducted proceedings for retransfer of property over the expropriated land.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   8.     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.   9.     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.     10.    By letter of 6 June 1995 the parties submitted the following agreement reached between them:   11.    <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. 18273/91, lodged by the Estate of Johanna GEYER, declare with a view to a friendly settlement, reached with the assistance of the European Commission of Human Rights, as follows:         1.    The Government of the Republic of Austria will pay to the       applicant estate a sum of altogether AS 170,000 as compensation       in respect of any possible claims relating to the present       application.   This sum includes AS 10,000 in respect of counsel's       fees and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the       Commission as well as AS 10,000 in respect of counsel's fees and       expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings.         This amount will be paid to the applicant estate's representative       Mr. Konrad Meingast in Gmunden.         2.    The applicant estate declares its application settled.         3.    The applicant estate waives any further claims against the       Republic of Austria relating to the present application."   <German>         "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung         In der Beschwerdesache Nr. 18273/91 der Verlassenschaft nach Johanna GEYER einigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel 28 Abs. 1 lit. b der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter Mitwirkung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die nachstehende gütliche Regelung:         1.    Die österreichische Regierung zahlt dem Beschwerdeführer       als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaige Ansprüche im Zusammenhang mit       der vorliegenden Beschwerde einen Gesamtbetrag von öS 170,000.       Dieser Betrag umfaßt öS 10,000 hinsichtlich der Gebühren und       Auslagen, die im Rahmen des Verfahrens vor der Kommission       entstanden sind sowie öS 10,000 hinsichtlich Gebühren und       Auslagen, die im Rahmen des innerstaatlichen Verfahrens       entstanden sind.         Dieser Betrag wird an den Verfahrensbevollmächtigten des       Beschwerdeführers Herrn Rechtsanwalt Dr. Konrad Meingast in       Gmunden überwiesen.         2.    Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt seine oben genannte Beschwerde       als erledigt.         3.    Der Beschwerdeführer verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung       allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Republik Österreich       im Zusammenhang mit dem der Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden       Sachverhalt."   12.    At its session on 6 September 1995, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.         If 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.   13.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber     President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                   (H. DANELIUS)