CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 mars 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. 22782/93                        Mesut and Göker Gümüskaya                                 against                                 Austria                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                     (adopted on 10 March 1998)                        TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page     I.    THE PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1      (paras. 1-3)   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1      (paras. 4-7)   III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . .   1      (paras. 8-16)   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . .   3      (paras. 17-19)   APPENDIX: DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   I.THE PARTIES   1.    This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30 para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Mesut and Göker Gümüskaya against Austria.   2.    The applicants are brothers and Turkish citizens.   They were both born in Vienna, Mesut Gümüskaya ("the first applicant") in 1972 and Göker Gümüskaya ("the second applicant") in 1974.   In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants were represented by Mr T. Prader, a lawyer practising in Vienna.   3.    The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Cede, Ambassador.     II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.    The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of 3 December 1997, annexed hereto, and may be summarised as follows:   5.    On 4 October 1990 the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) convicted the first applicant of aggravated robbery and attempted burglary and the second applicant of aggravated robbery, serious bodily harm and burglary.   On 23 April 1992 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) imposed, with reference to their aforesaid conviction, a residence prohibition expiring on 30 June 2002 on the applicants.   Their appeals were of no avail and they were expelled from Austria.   6.    On 28 November 1995 the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium für Inneres) instructed the Austrian diplomatic missions to Turkey to issue tourist visa with a year's validity to the applicants.   On the expiry of the visa the first applicant unsuccessfully tried to obtain a new permission to enter Austria and continued to live there without any legal basis.   The second applicant lived in Turkey and tried to have the residence prohibition in Austria lifted.   7.    Before the Commission the applicants complain that the imposition of a residence prohibition on them amounted to a breach of their right to respect for their private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.     III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   8.    The application was introduced on 28 September 1993 and registered on 18 October 1993.   9.    On 27 June 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) 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.   10.   The Government's observations were submitted on 27 October 1995, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicants replied on 19 December 1995.   11.   On 3 December 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible.   12.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 18 December 1997 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished.   13.   On 27 January 1998, in the context of the friendly settlement negotiations, the applicants expressed their concern that a mere lifting of the residence prohibition would not remedy their situation in full.   They claimed, in particular, a residence permit and reimbursement of their expenses incurred in the proceedings before both the Austrian authorities and the Commission.   14.   By letters of 30 January and 13 February 1998 the Government informed the Commission that the residence prohibition imposed on the applicants had been lifted by decisions of the Vienna Federal Police Authority of 13 January 1998, and that on 26 January 1998 the aforesaid authority had quashed its earlier decisions by which it had declared void the applicants' re-entry visa with unlimited validity.   The Government further stated that it was their understanding that the application could be terminated for lack of grievance.   15.   On 10 March 1998 the Commission decided to strike the present application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.   16.   It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish it.   The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:               MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                N. BRATZA                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    L. LOUCAIDES                B. CONFORTI                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           Mr    R. NICOLINI   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   17.   The Commission notes that the residence prohibition which was issued against the applicants in 1992 and which formed the basis of the present application has been lifted and that the validity of the visa permitting the applicants to re-enter Austria for an unlimited period has been renewed.   18.   In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that the matter giving rise to the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.   19.   Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.   In particular, it considers that the question of the applicants' costs is not a matter which would require continuation of the examination.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously     DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 22782/93 OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES;     ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;     DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information, and to publish it.            M.F. BUQUICCHIO               M.P. PELLONPÄÄ           Secretary                     President      to the First Chamber           of the First Chamber