CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 66361/01 by Gernot STIX against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mrs   E. Steiner, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2001, Having regard to the friendly settlement declarations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gernot Stix, is an Austrian national who lives in Innsbruck. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Stix, a lawyer practising in Innsbruck. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a physiotherapist by profession. He is the managing partner of a consortium of physiotherapists (“the consortium”). The application relates to proceedings concerning the applicant’s obligation as an employer to pay contributions to the social security system. In a first set of proceedings which started on 18 July 1988 the Administrative Court found, on 21 September 1993, that the consortium had no legal personality and, thus, did not qualify as an employer within the meaning of the General Social Security Act. Subsequently, the social security authorities found that it fell to the applicant as the managing partner of the consortium to pay contributions for a particular employee. The proceedings were terminated by the Administrative Court’s decision of 14 March 2001. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 25 June 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government offer to pay the amount of 5,800 euros (EUR) to Mr Gernot Stix in respect of application no. 66361/01 on an ex gratia basis for the withdrawal of his application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 5,800) shall cover any 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 20 June 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Austrian Government offer to pay me the amount of 5,800 euros (EUR) on an ex gratia basis in respect of the above application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 5,800) shall cover any 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 takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the applicant no longer intends to 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 case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President