CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 7 avril 1992

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                  PLENARY                          Application No. 13843/88                             Gottfried VITZTHUM                                   against                                     AUSTRIA                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 7 April 1992)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page         INTRODUCTION .............................................         1     PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..........................         3     PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ................................         4                                  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 Gottfried Vitzthum against Austria on 14 January 1988.   It was registered on 6 May 1988 under file No. 13843/88.         The applicant was represented by Mr. G.O. Mory, a lawyer practising in Salzburg.         The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Türk, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 17 January 1991 the Commission declared the application admissible . 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 found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 7 April 1992 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:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                                 PART I                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     4.     In 1967 the applicant, born in 1943, was admitted to a mental hospital in Salzburg on a voluntary basis.   In 1972 he was placed under guardianship on account of his mental illness.   5.     On 25 November 1985 the Salzburg District Court, in guardianship proceedings, approved the applicant's detention in the above mental hospital for a further period of twelve months.   On 3 November 1986 the Salzburg District Court approved the applicant's further detention in the mental hospital for a period of six months.   The District Court stated that the applicant was still suffering from dangerous hallucinations and thereby constituted a danger to himself.   The appeal of the applicant's guardian remained unsuccessful.   6.     Before the Commission the applicant complained that his continued detention in a mental hospital had no legal basis under Austrian law; that the Austrian courts had failed to take independent expert evidence upon the question whether or not he was suffering from a mental illness requiring his detention; and that the proceedings had not been fair, in that, in particular, he had not been heard in person and no counsel had been appointed to defend his interests.   The applicant invoked Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention.                                 PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED   7.     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.   8.     In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   9.     By letter of 16 March 1992 the applicant's representative, and by letter of 27 March 1992 the Agent of the Government submitted the following identical declarations on the agreement reached between the applicant and the Government in March 1992:   <Translation>       "Statements of the parties with a view of 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. 13843/88, lodged by Mr. Gottfried Vitzthum, declare with a view to a friendly settlement, reached with assistance of the European Commission of Human Rights, as follows:         1.    The Government of the Republic of Austria will pay to the       applicant a sum amounting to altogether AS 145,000 as       compensation in respect of any possible claims relating to his       detention in the Salzburg psychiatric hospital and the domestic       proceedings concerned.   This sum includes AS 25,000 in respect       of counsel's fees and expenses incurred both in the domestic       proceedings and in the proceedings before the Commission.         This amount will be paid to the applicant's representative       Mr. G.O. Mory in Salzburg.         2.    The sum paid to the applicant in the context of the present       friendly settlement will be exempted from any possible claims for       payment by the Austrian Government or by any other Austrian       authority, including any possible claims by the Land Salzburg for       reimbursement of social welfare benefits which the applicant has       previously received.         3.    The applicant declares his application settled.         4.    The applicant waives any further claims against the       Republic of Austria relating to the present application.         5.    The applicant's representative will take the necessary       steps to ensure the authorisation of the present settlement by       the competent Austrian guardianship court, if necessary."       <German>              "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung         In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13843/88 des Herrn Gottfried Vitzthum verständigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel 28 Abs. 1 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 etwaigen Ansprüche im Zusammenhang       mit seiner Anhaltung in der Landesnervenklinik Salzburg und dem       dieser zugrundeliegenden Verfahren einen Gesamtbetrag von       AS 145.000.   Dieser Betrag umfaßt AS 25.000 hinsichtlich der       Gebühren und Auslagen, die im Rahmen seiner Rechtsverfolgung vor       den nationalen Gerichten und im Verfahren vor der Kommission       entstanden sind.         Dieser Betrag wird an den Verfahrensbevollmächtigten des       Beschwerdeführers Herrn G. O. Mory in Salzburg überwiesen.         2.    Die dem Beschwerdeführer im Rahmen dieses Vergleiches       gezahlte Summe wird nicht zum Ausgleich etwaiger       Regreßforderungen der Republik Österreich oder anderer       staatlicher Stellen herangezogen, so insbesondere nicht zur       Begleichung von Regreßforderungen des Landes Salzburg wegen in       der Vergangenheit geleisteter Sozialhilfe.         3.    Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt seine oben genannte Beschwerde       als erledigt.         4.    Der Beschwerdeführer verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung       allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Republik Österreich       im Zusammenhang mit dem der Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden       Sachverhalt.         5.    Für eine allfällige pflegschaftsbehördliche Genehmigung des       vorliegenden Vergleichs wird der Verfahrensbevollmächtigte des       Beschwerdeführers Sorge tragen."   10.    At its session on 7 April 1992, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It 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.   11.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.       Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)