CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mars 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s7C119006 { width:5.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37882/97 by Josef GLANTSCHNIG against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze , judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 August 1996 and registered on 23   July   1997, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is an Austrian national, born in 1943 and living in Bludenz. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 November 1992 the applicant was involved in a road traffic accident. On 17 December 1992 he was found by the Bludenz District Administrative Authority to have been driving under the influence of alcohol, contrary to Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. He was sentenced to pay a fine of ATS 18,000. He had confessed, and did not appeal. On 14 January 1993 the Bludenz District Court issued a summary penal order, by which it convicted the applicant of endangering bodily safety in particularly dangerous conditions, and sentenced him to a fine of ATS   18,000. The applicant paid the fine and did not appeal. Upon a nullity plea for the preservation of the law filed by the Procurator General, this decision was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court, followed by the District Court, and then in effect reinstated by the Feldkirch Regional Court upon the public prosecutor’s appeal, with a fine of ATS   10,000 being imposed on the applicant on 2 July 1997. The Regional Court considered that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention did not prevent courts from punishing offences after administrative authorities had done so COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained that his conviction by the Bludenz District Court violated his rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. THE LAW The Court observes that by letter of 26 September 2000 the applicant was invited to reply to the observations of the Government. On 6 December 2000 the Registrar of the Third Section, not having received any comments from the applicant, sent him a registered letter recalling the state of proceedings and drawing his attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that   (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The applicant did not reply. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President