CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s64B259E8 { width:3.35pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .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 } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .s3D3CEC39 { width:220.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 39077/97 by Ali Hidir SENGÜL against Austria The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 11 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   K. Traja , judges , and     Mrs   S. D ollé, Section Registrar ,   Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 October 1997 and registered on 22   December 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ali Hidir Sengül, is a Turkish national, born in 1968 and living in Vienna. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Thomas Prader, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 21 November 1994, following his acquittal on charges of attempted obstruction of a public authority and damage to property, the applicant requested compensation for his detention on remand in accordance with the Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 ( Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz ). On 20 December 1996, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 29 April 1997, the Vienna Court of Appeal, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Following communication of the present application to the respondent Government, the Procurator General filed a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) with the Supreme Court. On 19 October 2000, the Supreme Court found that the courts’ failure to hold a public hearing and to pronounce their decisions publicly in the compensation proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It therefore quashed the decisions of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the Regional Court. On 2 February 2001, at the public hearing before the Vienna Regional Court, the applicant withdrew his compensation claim. By letter of 5 July 2001, the applicant’s counsel informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw the case. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a fair and public hearing and the lack of any public pronouncement of the decisions in the proceedings concerning his compensation claim for detention on remand. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the courts’ reasoning when refusing his compensation claim disregarded the presumption of innocence. THE LAW The Court observes that by letter of 5 July 2001 the applicant stated that he wished to withdraw his application. It recalls the terms of Article 37   § 1 of the Convention which, so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     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.” In the present case the Court finds that applicant does not intend to pursue his application and considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation of 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. D ollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President