CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 octobre 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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 15668/89                                     K.                                   against                                 SWITZERLAND                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 14 October 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 K. against Switzerland on 14 August 1989.   It was registered on 23 October 1989 under file No. 15668/89.         The applicant was represented by Mr. E. Pfister, a lawyer practising at Lachen.         The Swiss Government were represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr. Ph. Boillat, Head of the European Law and International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice.   2.     On 6 December 1991 the Commission declared the application admissible insofar as it related to the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.   3.     On 30 March 1992 the Commission referred the application, insofar as declared admissible, to the Second Chamber.   4.     The Commission (Second Chamber) 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."   5.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 14 October 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.   6.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON, Acting President of the Second Chamber                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J. GEUS                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.     The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1949, is a businessman residing at Pfäffikon in Switzerland.   8.     On 22 January 1985 the applicant was driving on the motorway from Zürich to Pfäffikon when two police officers drove up behind him.   As he was driving so slow as to raise suspicion, they followed him when he left the motorway; he then disregarded a traffic sign, whereupon they stopped him.   9.     The applicant underwent a breathalyser test.   This proved to be positive, and criminal proceedings were instituted against him.   On 29 April 1985 the Höfe District Court (Bezirksgericht) convicted the applicant of disregarding a traffic sign, but acquitted him of the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol.   10.    Upon the Public Prosecutor's appeal, the Cantonal Court (Kantonsgericht) of the Canton of Schwyz decided on 14 May 1987 to terminate the proceedings with regard to the offence of disregarding a traffic sign.   On the other hand, it convicted the applicant of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced him to a fine of 1,500 SFr.   11.    Against this decision the applicant filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 10 December 1987.   The applicant was notified of the decision on 16 December 1987.   The written reasons of the decision, numbering sixteen pages, were served on the applicant on 24 February 1989.   12.    Before the Commission the applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings in particular before the Federal Court.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   13.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) 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.   14.    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.   15.    Following an exchange of letters through the intermediary of the Chamber Secretary, the applicant submitted on 27 July 1992, and the Deputy Agent on 28 July 1992, the following agreement reached between the parties:                            "DECLARATION"   <English>   "1.    The Swiss Confederation will make an ex gratia payment of       1,000 SFr as compensation for all damages and the costs and       expenses incurred by the applicant in Switzerland and in       Strasbourg as a result of the facts which gave rise to the       introduction of Application No. 15668/89 before the       European Commission of Human Rights;   2.     This payment does not in any way constitute recognition by       the Confederation of any violation of the provisions of the       European Convention on Human Rights;   3.     In view of the undertaking referred to in paragraph 1, the       applicant considers Application No. 15668/89 lodged with       the European Commission of Human Rights, as settled and       undertakes to withdraw it;   4.     The applicant also states that he will lodge no other       claims before national or international authorities on the       basis of the facts which gave rise to the introduction of       the said application."   <Français>   "1.    La Confédération suisse verse, à titre gracieux, la somme       de 1,000 F.S. à titre d'indemnité forfaitaire, toutes       causes de préjudice confondues, et y inclus les frais et       dépenses encourus par le requérant en Suisse et à       Strasbourg à raison des faits qui ont donné lieu à       l'introduction, devant la Commission européenne des Droits       de l'Homme de la requête No. 15668/89;   2.     Ce versement ne constitue en aucune manière la       reconnaissance par la Confédération d'une quelconque       violation des dispositions de la Convention européenne des       Droits de l'Homme;   3.     Compte tenu de l'engagement mentionné sous chiffre 1., le       requérant considère la requête No. 15668/89 introduite       devant la Commission européenne des Droits de l'Homme comme       réglée et il s'engage à la retirer;   4.     Le requérant déclare en outre qu'il ne fera pas valoir       d'autres prétentions devant les autorités nationales ou       internationales à raison des faits qui ont donné lieu à       l'introduction de ladite requête."   16.    At its session on .. October 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.   17.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber   Acting President of the Second Chamber            (K. ROGGE)                        (G. JÖRUNDSSON)