CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 février 1993

.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. 16705/90                       by W.M.                       against Liechtenstein           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 February 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI              Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the First 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 29 May 1990 by W.M. against Liechtenstein and registered on 11 June 1990 under file No. 16705/90;         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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         The applicant is a Liechtenstein national, born in 1934 and residing in Vaduz.   By profession he is a lawyer.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz (Austria).         Following a report by a judge dealing with bankruptcy proceedings (Konkursrichter) the public prosecutor requested on 19 July 1983 the institution of preliminary investigations (Vorerhebungen) against the applicant and two other suspects.         On 26 March 1984 the public prosecutor requested the opening of a formal investigation (Einleitung der Untersuchung) against the applicant and three other suspects on the suspicion of having committed fraudulent bankruptcy (betrügerische Krida) of a company and breach of trust (Untreue).         On 30 May 1984 the investigating judge granted the public prosecutor's request and on 11 July 1984 issued a written decision which was subsequently served on the applicant.   The applicant's appeal against the decision of the investigating judge was dismissed by the High Court (Obergericht) on 12 September 1984.         On 9 February 1987 the public prosecutor brought an application for prosecution in simplified proceedings (Strafantrag im vereinfachten Verfahren) against the applicant, and against the former sole member of the board of directors (Verwaltungsrat) of the company and the he liquidator of the company for an offence against the security of property (Vergehen gegen die Sicherheit des Eigentums).         On 10, 11 and 26 August 1987 hearings were held before a single judge of the Court of Justice (Landgericht).   Judgment was delivered on 28 August 1987.   On 6 April 1988 the judgment was made out in writing and served on the applicant.   The liquidator was convicted under Section 486 para. 2 (g) of the Penal Code of having tried, at a time when it was known to him that the liabilities exceeded the assets, to delay the opening of bankruptcy proceedings by squandering the stock of goods and equipment of the company thus causing pecuniary damage to its creditors.   The applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting him and sentenced to four months' imprisonment on probation with a probationary period of two years.         On 18 January 1989 the High Court dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity (Berufung wegen Nichtigkeit und wegen des Ausspruches über die Schuld) but reduced the sentence to two months' imprisonment.         On 14 April 1989 the applicant lodged a complaint (Beschwerde) with the Court of State (Staatsgerichtshof) invoking Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.         On 24 April 1989 the High Court submitted its observations.         On 3 November 1989 the Court of State dismissed the applicant's complaint.       COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention that by applying Section 486 of the Penal Code, a provision containing a reversal of the burden of proof to the disadvantage of the accused, the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated.   As a consequence he had also not received a fair trial and had been convicted contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.         The applicant further complains that the proceedings had not been conducted within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 29 May 1990 and registered on 11 June 1990.         On 14 October 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings.         By letter dated 7 January 1993, the applicant's lawyer informed the Secretariat that he had received instruction by the applicant to withdraw the application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application.         The applicant therefore no longer intends to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the First Chamber          President of the First Chamber             (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (J.A. FROWEIN)