CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 mai 2003

.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 } .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 } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 61903/00 by Gheorghe ROATIS and Ioan ROATIS against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22   May   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner, judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 2000, Having regard to the partial decision of 27 June 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Gheorghe Roatis and Ioan Roatis, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and live in Unterpremstätten (Austria). They are represented before the Court by Mr.   W. Vacarescu, a lawyer practising in Graz (Austria). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 6 June 1997 the applicants were arrested and the Leoben Regional Court imposed detention on remand on them. They were suspected of burglary as a member of a gang ( schwerer und gewerbsmäßiger Bandendiebstahl ) and of receiving stolen goods ( Hehlerei ). On 11 August 1997 the applicants were released. On 13 October 1997 the Regional Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicants as it found no further reason to prosecute the applicants. On 31 October 1997 the applicants requested compensation for their detention under the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act ( Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz ). On 18 November 1997 the Review Chamber of the Leoben Regional Court ( Ratskammer ), sitting in camera, dismissed this request. On 4 December 1997 the applicants appealed against this decision. On 18 December 1997 the Graz Court of Appeal ( Oberlandesgericht ), sitting in camera, dismissed the applicants’ appeal and confirmed the Review Chamber’s decision. This decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 7 December 1999. On 7 November 2002 the Supreme Court, upon the Procurator General’s plea of nullity for the preservation of law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ), quashed the Review Chamber’s and the Court of Appeal’s decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It found that the court’s failure to hold a hearing in the compensation proceedings violated the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. COMPLAINT The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that no public hearing was held in the course of the compensation proceedings. THE LAW The Court observes that by letter of 13 January 2003 the Government informed the Court that by decision of 7 November 2002 the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Review Chamber of the Leoben Regional Court of 18 November 1997 and the decision of the Graz Court of Appeal of 18   December 1997 and remitted the case to the Graz Regional Court for deciding again on the applicants’ compensation claim. The applicants did not comment on these submissions. The Court reiterates 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; .. (b)     the matter has been resolved;.. 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 considers that the applicants no longer intend pursuing their application and that the matter has been resolved since the applicants’ complaint relates to proceedings which have been quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the failure to hold a hearing violated the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1. New proceedings are to be conducted by the Regional Court. The Court also 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) and (b) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President