CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .sF336C50E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s94034E2C { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 48688/99 by Adolf HOLZINGER against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8   July   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mrs   E. Steiner,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Deputy SectionRegistrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 1998, Having regard to the decision of 7 March 2002 to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Adolf Holzinger, is an Austrian national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Oberalm. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 9 November 1992 the Salzburg Municipal Office (Magistrat), pursuant to the Frontage Resident Payment Act (Anliegerleistungsgesetz) ordered the applicant to pay ATS 7,600 as a contribution to the construction of public lighting in two streets facing the applicant’s property . The applicant appealed against this decision. On 13 April 1994 the Salzburg Appeal Committee for Construction (Bauberufungskommission der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg) dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. On 17 October 1994 the Salzburg Appeal Committee for Construction filed comments on the applicant’s appeal. On 22 September 1998 the Administrative Court quashed the decision and referred the case to the Salzburg Appeal Committee for Construction. On 30 November 1998 the Appeal Committee finally granted the applicant’s appeal against the Salzburg Municipal Office’s decision of 9   November 1992 and ordered the applicant to pay ATS 6,900 instead of ATS 7,600.   COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings at issue lasted unreasonably long. THE LAW On 21 May 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that, the Government offer to pay the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) to   Adolf   Holzinger in respect of the application no. 48688/99 on an ex gratia basis for the withdrawal of his application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 1,000) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be paid free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months from the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On the same day the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Austrian Government offer to pay me the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) on an ex gratia basis in respect of the above application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 1,000) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be paid free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months from the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the offer and withdraw the application waiving any further claims against Austria in respect of the application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.” The Court reiterates the terms of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention which, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)   the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; (b)     the matter has been resolved;.. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties, notes that the applicant no longer intends pursue his application and that the matter has been resolved. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President