CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 21 janvier 1998

.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. 26793/95                            Osman Öztürk                               against                               Austria                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 21 January 1998)                          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 Mr Osman Öztürk against Austria on 21 December 1992.   It was registered on 21 March 1995 under file No. 26793/95.   2.    The applicant was represented by Mr W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz.   3.    The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.    On 2 July 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application admissible insofar as it concerned the procedural aspects of the case and inadmissible as to the remainder of the application. 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."   5.    The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 21 January 1998 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.   6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             MM    N. BRATZA, Acting President                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                I. BÉKÉS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           Mr    R. NICOLINI                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.    The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1951 and resident in Lauterach.   8.    On 18 April 1990 the applicant was fined AS 1,000.00 by the Bregenz District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) for alleged contravention of the Passports Act (Paßgesetz). No interpreter was present. On his application to the Vorarlberg Police Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion), more precise details were given.   In particular, he was alleged to have been in Austria after expiry of his visa between 17 January 1990 and 6 April 1990, contrary to Sections 14 and 2 of the Aliens Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz); his formal appeal was rejected by that authority on 10 August 1990.   9.    The Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) declined to deal with the applicant's constitutional complaint on 26 November 1990, and on 20 June 1991 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's administrative appeal in part, and quashed the part of Police Authority's decision relating to the fine imposed on the applicant.   10.   A fresh fine of AS 1,000.00 was imposed by the Police Authority on 29 July 1991, and the Constitutional Court declined to deal with applicant's constitutional appeal against it on 24 February 1992.   On 25 May 1992 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant's administrative complaint to the extent that he was making a further challenge to the conviction, and dismissed the remainder.   It decided that a hearing was not necessary.   11.   The applicant's representative's date stamp on the decision shows that he received the Administrative Court's decision on 30 June 1992. It also shows "Erl. 30.12.92" ("Erl" is an abbreviation for "erledigt", "dealt with").   12.   The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. He complains that no court was able to consider the facts of his case, in violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, that he was refused an interpreter before the initial administrative authority, in violation of Article 6 para. 3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) and (e) (Art. 6-3-e), and that he was ultimately fined for a more serious offence than the one with which he had initially been charged, in violation of Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention. In particular, he claims that the proceedings should have been brought under the version of the Aliens Police Act which was in force before 18 April 1990, date of entry into force of a 1990 amendment to that Act. He also claims that the penalty was more severe under the post-1990 amendment than before it.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   13.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) 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.   14.   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.   15.   On 28 December 1997 the applicant and on 9 January 1998 the Government submitted declarations as to a settlement of the case whereby the Government agreed to pay to the applicant's representative a sum of AS 40,000.00 as compensation in respect of any possible claims relating to the present application.   The applicant waived any further claims relating to the administrative criminal proceedings at issue in the present application.   16.   At its session on 21 January 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, 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.   17.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                   N. BRATZA           Secretary                   Acting President      to the First Chamber           of the First Chamber