CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 7 avril 1976

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention");   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention, relating to the application lodged by Mr Christian Müller against Austria (No. 5849/72);   Whereas on 26 November 1975 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32.1 (art. 32-1) of the convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in his application introduced on 27 September 1972, Mr Christian Müller alleged violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol (P1-1), Article 14 of the convention in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol (art. 14+P1-1) and Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention;   Whereas the Commission on 16 December 1974 declared the application admissible with exception of the complaint in respect of Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention and in its report adopted on 1 October 1975, it examined the alleged violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol (P1-1) by reason of the partial loss of the applicant's right to a full pension earned by the payment of the relevant contributions as a member of a pension scheme and the alleged violation of Article 14 of the convention in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol (art. 14+P1-1), by reason of the alteration of the rights of voluntarily insured persons, which, it was maintained, only affects frontier workers employed in Liechtenstien;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed the opinion by 13 votes for and 1 abstention that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol (P1-1) and by 12 votes for and 2 abstentions that there had not been a violation of Article 14 of the convention in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol (art. 14+P1-1) in the present case;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31.1 (art. 31-1) of the convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32.1 (art. 32-1) of the convention,   Decides that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.