CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 15154/89                             Marion Baumgartner   against                                   Austria                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 16 February 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3                                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 Marion Baumgartner against Austria on 23 May 1989.   It was registered on 21 June 1989 under file No. 15154/89.         The applicant was represented by Mr. K. Lichtl, a lawyer practising in Linz.         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 1 April 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) 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 16 February 1993 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.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                       G. JÖRUNDSSON                       A. WEITZEL                       J.-C. SOYER                       H. G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                       F. MARTINEZ                       J.-C. GEUS                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The applicant is an Austrian national and resident at Hörsching in Austria.   She was born out of wedlock in April 1983.   In May 1983 Mr. Z., who had already one child born in wedlock in 1963 and another child born out of wedlock in 1976, recognised the paternity as regards the applicant.   Mr. Z. died intestate on 1 February 1988.   5.     In subsequent succession proceedings, the Austrian courts rejected the applicant's acceptance of succession on the ground that there was an intestate succession and the legitimate child had stated his acceptance of succession with limited liability.   Under S. 754 para. 2 of the Austrian Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; in the version in force at the relevant time), in case of intestate succession, the legitimate child, having accepted succession, had precedence over an illegitimate child.   6.     The applicant complained that, as a result of the application of S. 754 para. 2 of the Civil Code, she could not claim a right to intestate succession after her father's death on the sole ground of her birth out of wedlock.   The applicant invoked Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   7.     On 1 January 1991 the Austrian Act on the Reform of the Law on Succession (Erbrechtsänderungsgesetz) of 1989 entered into force, repealing S. 754 of the Austrian Civil Code.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   8.     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.   9.     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.   10.    By letters of 22 and 27 January 1993 the parties submitted the following agreement reached between them:   <Translation>         "Statements of the parties with a view to 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. 15154/89, lodged by Miss Marion Baumgartner, 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 359,187 as       compensation in respect of any possible claims relating to the       present application.   This sum includes AS 59,187 in respect of       counsel's fees and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings       and the proceedings before the Commission.         This amount will be paid to the applicant's representative       Mr. K. Lichtl in Linz.         2.    The applicant declares her application settled.         3.    The applicant waives any further claims against the       Republic of Austria relating to the present application."   <German>         "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung         In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 15154/89 des Fräulein Marion Baumgartner 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 der Beschwerdeführerin       als Ausgleich für sämtliche etwaige Ansprüche im Zusammenhang mit       der vorliegenden Individualbeschwerde einen Gesamtbetrag von       AS 359.187.   Dieser Betrag umfaßt AS 59.187 hinsichtlich der       Gebühren und Auslagen, die im Rahmen der nationalen       Gerichtsverfahren und des Verfahrens vor der Kommission       entstanden sind.         Dieser Betrag wird an den Verfahrensbevollmächtigten der       Beschwerdeführerin Herrn K. Lichtl in Linz überwiesen.         2.    Die Beschwerdeführerin erklärt ihre oben genannte       Beschwerde als erledigt.         3.    Die Beschwerdeführerin verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung       allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Republik Österreich       im Zusammenhang mit dem der Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden       Sachverhalt."   11.    At its session on 16 February 1993, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further noted that S. 754 of the Austrian Civil Code, which formed the basis of the decision complained of, has been repeated by the Act on the Reform of the Law on Succession.   The Commission concluded, 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.   12.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber     President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                         (S. TRECHSEL)