CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 décembre 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 }                            Application No. 18350/91                       by B.F.                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                    Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 21 December 1990 by B.F. against Austria and registered on 13 June 1991 under file No. 18350/91;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:         THE FACTS         The applicant is a German citizen born in 1967 and living in Vienna.   She is represented by Mr. Thomas Prader, a lawyer in Vienna.         It follows from the statements and the documents submitted that on 14 December 1985 the applicant and four other persons were arrested for having participated in an unauthorised demonstration.   She was kept by the police for several hours.         On 10 April 1986, the public prosecutor filed an indictment accusing the applicant of having caused grievous bodily harm and having offered resistance to public officials.         A first oral hearing took place before the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) on 12 June 1986.   At this hearing, the defence named several witnesses and was requested to indicate their addresses within two weeks.   At the same hearing, a television film of the demonstration was examined.   It is stated in the minutes of the hearing that the applicant had been summoned but did not appear.   On 6 May 1987, the trial continued and the applicant, who was then present, requested that the film which had been shown at the previous hearing be examined again.   Furthermore witness M. was heard while five other witnesses who had been summoned at the request of the applicant did not appear.   The applicant was again requested to indicate the exact names and addresses of these witnesses within two weeks.         At a hearing of 13 April 1989, two police officers named by the prosecution and four witnesses named by the defence were heard while five other summoned defence witnesses did not appear.         On 8 May 1989, the applicant was convicted of attempted resistance against State officials, but acquitted on the charge of grievous bodily harm.   In accordance with section 13 of the Juvenile Court Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz) sentence was reserved for a period of probation of 3 years.         On 15 May 1990, the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) rejected the applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde). However, partially granting her appeal, it reduced the period of probation to one year.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant has complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against her.   She has submitted that even if she did not indicate the names and addresses of her witnesses, it would have been the task of the court and the prosecuting authorities to find out the whereabouts of these witnesses by way of police investigations and to see to it that they be summoned in order to terminate the proceedings as quickly as possible.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 21 December 1990 and registered on 13 June 1991.   On 13 February 1992, the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on its admissibility and merits.   The respondent Government submitted their observations on 9 July 1992.   By letter of 17 September 1992, the applicant's counsel stated that the applicant wished to withdraw her application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         As the application has been withdrawn, the Commission concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application.   It finds no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention necessitating an examination of the application ex officio.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Second Chamber    President of the Second Chamber          (K. ROGGE)                          (S. TRECHSEL)