CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 septembre 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. 16148/90                       by H.B.                       against Austria         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  A. WEITZEL                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA              Mr.    M. de SALVIA, Deputy Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 6 December 1989 by H.B. against Austria and registered on 8 February 1990 under file No. 16148/90;         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 applicant, born in 1936, is an Austrian national.   He is a public notary practising in Salzburg.         On 23 August 1989 the Investigating Judge at the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht), in the context of criminal proceedings against others, ordered the search of the applicant's notary office in order to find documents and files concerning several suspects.   Such documents, except information submitted by clients, were to be seized.         On 12 September 1989 two officials of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium für Inneres) presented the search and seizure warrant to the applicant, and asked him to deliver the documents concerned voluntarily.   Following some discussion, it was agreed that the applicant could deposit the documents concerned with the Notaries' Association where they would be sealed and kept until judicial review of the search and seizure warrant.         On 5 October 1989 the Judges' Chamber (Ratskammer) at the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against the search and seizure warrant.         On 23 October 1989 the Investigating Judge at the Salzburg Regional Court ordered that the documents, which had been deposited at the Notaries' Association, be seized.   The documents were transmitted to the Court on 10 July 1990.         On 1 August 1990 the Judges' Chamber at the Salzburg Regional Court ordered that the documents in question be examined by the Investigating Judge, information obtained from clients being excluded. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Judges' Chamber at the Salzburg Regional Court on 10 October 1990.   On 31 October 1990 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's further complaint and decided not to take any supervisory measures.         On 28 November 1990 the Investigating Judge at the Salzburg Regional Court examined the documents concerned.   Various documents were seized, the remainder was given back.   On 23 January 1991 the Judges' Chamber at the Salzburg Regional Court, upon the applicant's complaint, decided that only five documents be retained, while all other documents were to be given back to the applicant.         On 31 January 1992 the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the plea of nullity for the preservation of the law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes) lodged by the Attorney General (Generalpro-kuratur) against the continued retention of one of the documents.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained that the search and seizure warrant of 23 August 1989 violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant, in this respect, also invoked Article 6, in particular Article 6 para. 3 (c), of the Convention.   2.     Furthermore, the applicant complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy against the search and seizure warrant.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 6 December 1989 and registered on 8 February 1990.         On 6 January 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on the admissibility and merits.         On 15 April 1992 the Government submitted their observations. The applicant submitted his observations in reply on 15 June 1992.         On 30 July 1993 the Government submitted the English translation of their observations on the admissibility and merits, which were forwarded to the applicant on 4 August 1993.         By letter of 10 August 1993 the applicant informed the Commission that, in the light of the Government's observations, he wished to withdraw his application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicant complained that the search and seizure warrant of 23 August 1989, and the subsequent seizure and inspection of documents kept at his office, violated his rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.   He also complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in this respect.         By letter of 10 August 1993 the applicant informed the Commission that he wished to withdraw his application.         In these circumstances, the Commission finds that it is not justified to continue the examination of the present application, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention which require the further examination of this application.           For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission         (M. de Salvia)                               (C.A. Nørgaard)