CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 juillet 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 }                      Application No. 31698/96                     by J. F.                     against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 8 July 1998, the following members being present:             MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                N. BRATZA                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           Mr    R. NICOLINI             Mrs   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 4 April 1996 by J. F. against Austria and registered on 3 June 1996 under file No. 31698/96;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      20 March 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 25 May 1998;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1940 and residing in Grünau (Upper Austria).   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. K. Meingast, a lawyer practising in Gmunden (Upper Austria).        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        In February 1989 the applicant bought two parcels of land situated in Scharnstein (Upper Austria) which are forest.   Subsequently he replaced an old forest hut on his land by a new one.   The new hut was erected at a distance of 20 metres from the place where the old one stood.        On 5 October 1992 the Gmunden District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) ordered the applicant to remove the forest hut and to re-plant trees on the place where it is situated.   The Authority found that the applicant had erected the forest hut without any permission and that an expert for forestry had found that a hut was not necessary for the cultivation of his forest.   The applicant therefore used forest soil for other purposes than forestry, which was prohibited by Section 17 para. 1 of the Forest Act (Forstgesetz).        On 13 September 1993 the Upper Austria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) dismissed the applicant's appeal.        On 28 November 1994 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint against the Regional Governor's decision for lack of prospect of success.   It referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).        On 24 March 1995 the applicant supplemented his complaint to the Administrative Court and also requested that an oral hearing be held.        On 25 September 1995 the Administrative Court decided on the applicant's complaint.   Insofar the order concerned the removal of the forest hut the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.   Insofar the order concerned the re-cultivation of the soil on which the hut is erected the Administrative Court quashed the order.   The Administrative Court also rejected, in accordance with Section 39 para. 2 (6) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), the applicant's request for an oral hearing.   Referring to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Fischer case (Fischer v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312), the Administrative Court found that also Article 6 of the Convention did not require the holding of a hearing in the present case because the essential facts had not been in dispute and the legal questions to be decided had already been resolved in the Administrative Court's previous case-law.        On 2 April 1996 the Regional Governor decided again on the applicant's appeal against the District Administrative Authority's order of 5 October 1992, insofar it concerned the order to re-plant trees and quashed this part of the order.   B.    Relevant domestic law        Section 39   para. 1 of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungs- gerichtshofgesetz) provides that the Administrative Court is to hold a hearing after its preliminary investigation of the case where a complainant has requested a hearing within the time-limit.   Section 39 para. 2 (6), which was added to the Act in 1982, provides however:        "Notwithstanding a party's application, the Administrative Court      may decide not to hold a hearing when        ...        6.    It is apparent to the Court from the written pleadings of      the parties to the proceedings before the Administrative Court      and from the files relating to the prior proceedings that an oral      hearing is not likely to contribute to clarifying the case."     COMPLAINTS        The applicant's remaining complaint concerns the lack of a public hearing in the proceedings under the Forest Act before the Administrative Court.   He relies on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 4 April 1996 and registered on 3 June 1996.        On 14 January 1998 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the lack of a public hearing in the proceedings under the Forest Act to the respondent Government and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 20 March 1998.   The applicant replied on 25 May 1998.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant in his observations of 25 May 1998 informed the Commission that he did not intend to pursue his application and referred to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.        As regards the issues raised in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the 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.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                           M.P. PELLONPÄÄ      Secretary                                President to the First Chamber                     of the First Chamber