CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 5 mars 1996

.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                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 20807/92                                  Mikdat Bulut                                     against                                     Austria                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 5 March 1996)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                      Page   I.     THE PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1       (paras. 1-3)     II.    SUMMARY OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1       (paras. 4-8)     III.   THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 2       (paras. 9-20)     IV.    THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4       (paras. 21-23)     ANNEX:      DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE            ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION . . . . . .5I.THE PARTIES   1.     This Report, which is drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Mikdat Bulut against Austria.   2.     In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by Mr. Wilfried Ludwig Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz, Austria.   3.     The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Franz Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.     II.    SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.     The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of 29 November 1995, attached hereto as an appendix and can be summarised as follows:   5.     On 21 December 1990 the Innsbruck Federal Police Department (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued a residence prohibition against the applicant, referring to a conviction of 23 March 1990 and to administrative offences for which the applicant had been fined.   6.   The Tyrol Security Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion) rejected the applicant's appeal on 14 June 1991, and on 30 September 1991 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) declined to deal with the applicant's constitutional complaint.   7.     On 12 June 1992 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) rejected the applicant's administrative complaint.   8.     Before the Commission the applicant complains that the residence prohibition which was issued on 21 December 1990 constituted an unjustified interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.     III.   THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   9.     The application was introduced on 29 September 1992 and registered on 13 October 1992.   The applicant's first application (No. 17358/90) terminated in a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 22 February 1996.   A third application (No. 25191/94) concerned the applicant's detention pending removal (Schubhaft) which was not finally carried out. It was declared inadmissible on 12 January 1995.   10.    On 2 March 1994 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   11.    The Government's observations were submitted on 27 May 1994 and the observations in reply by the applicant were submitted on 4 August 1994.   12.    On 29 November 1995 the Commission declared the application admissible.   13.    The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 8 December 1995 and they were invited to submit any further evidence or additional observations which they wished to put before the Commission.   14.    By letter of 26 January 1996 the Government informed the Commission that the applicant had been issued a re-entry permit by the Austrian Embassy in Ljubljana and that the residence prohibition against him had been lifted ex officio on 4 December 1995.   With regard to the fact that the applicant was again entitled to legally reside in Austria and that he was thus given satisfaction, the Government expressed their wish that the application be struck out of the list of the Commission's cases, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.   15.    By letter of 31 January 1996 the Commission requested the applicant to comment on the Government's proposal by 16 February 1996.   16.    On 9 February 1996 the applicant asked for an extension until 26 February 1996 as a judgment in his first case before the Convention organs (Application No. 17358/90) was to be given by the European Court of Human Rights on 22 February 1996.   By letter of 26 February 1996 he asked for a further extension until 28 February 1996.   17.    On 29 February 1996 the applicant submitted that the case should not be struck off the list as he had suffered considerably as a result of the residence prohibition.   He pointed to the uncertainty hovering over him and his family since 1990 and to the costs incurred in his representation.   He also submitted that Governments should not be permitted to play "cat and mouse" with an applicant - the applicant was twice taken into detention pending removal - until an application is declared admissible, and then be able to avoid responsibility by withdrawing a residence prohibition.   He considered that he should be granted a permanent residence permit.   By the same letter the applicant also made settlement proposals.   18.    On 29 February 1996 the Government declined to comment on the settlement proposals.   19.    On 5 March 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) adopted the present Report.   20.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL     IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   21.    The Commission notes that residence prohibition which was made against the applicant in 1990 and which formed the basis of the present application has been lifted.   22.    The Commission notes that the question of one period of detention pending removal was considered in Application No. 25191/94, which was declared inadmissible on 12 January 1995, and that throughout the period from 1990 until the lifting of the prohibition in 1995, the applicant remained in Austria and was able to pursue his occupation as a waiter.   The application does not concern a refusal to grant a residence permit, and so the applicant's submission that he should now be given such a permit is not pertinent.   The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Commission.   23.    The Commission further concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination.   In particular, it considers that the question of the applicant's costs is not a matter which would require continuation of the examination.           For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 20807/92 OFF ITS LIST OF CASES;         ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;         DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers       for information, to send it also to the parties' representatives,       and to publish it.     Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber           (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                      (C.L. ROZAKIS)