CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mai 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. 19893/92                        by D.S.                        against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 13 May 1993, the following members being present:                    MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                       A. WEITZEL                       J.-C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                  Mrs. G. H. THUNE                  MM.   F. MARTINEZ                       J.-C. GEUS                       M.A. NOWICKI                       I. CABRAL BARRETO                    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 12 February 1992 by D.S. against Austria and registered on 24 April 1992 under file No. 19893/92;         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 an Austrian citizen born in 1933.   He lives in H. and is represented before the Commission by Mr. K. Reisch, lawyer, of Kitzbühel.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         Preliminary proceedings were opened against the applicant in 1981.   He was convicted on 30 May 1984 of fraud.   He received the written judgment on 4 July 1986.         On 13 March 1987 the judgment of the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), quashing the judgment of 30 May 1984, was served on the applicant.         In the second round of proceedings, the applicant was convicted on 23 March 1988 of negligent insolvency.   He received the written judgment on 11 April 1989.   The applicant's nullity appeal was determined in June 1990.   The written judgment was served on the applicant in July 1990.   The Supreme Court, a second time, quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court.         On 16 September 1991 the applicant was convicted, in a third round of proceedings, of negligent insolvency.   The written judgment was served on him on 3 March 1992.         When the application was introduced the proceedings were still pending before the Supreme Court.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention by virtue of the length of the proceedings.   He also complained that the proceedings were "blown up" out of all proportion to the importance of the case.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 12 February 1992 and registered on 24 April 1992.   On 20 October 1992 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to request written observations on its admissibility and merits.   After the respondent Government had requested an extension of time for submission of observations in order to permit settlement negotiations between the parties, the applicant on 15 February 1993 informed the Commission that a settlement had been reached.   The settlement provides that an application for costs by the applicant at the end of the proceedings will be granted, and that the applicant agrees to withdraw his application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings against him.         The Commission notes that the applicant has come to an agreed solution with the respondent Government and that he wishes to withdraw his application.         The Commission concludes that this matter has been resolved and that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.   It further finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation of the examination.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES       Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber               (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)