CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .s6644A164 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2492270 { width:14.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA99880FE { width:19.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 64077/00 by Helmut FELLNER against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11   September 2003   as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr   P. Lorenzen ,     Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   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 11 September 2000, Having regard to the partial decision of 10 October 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Helmut Fellner, is an Austrian [Note1] national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Graz (Austria). He is 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 19 November 1998 the Graz Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) imposed detention on remand on the applicant. He was suspected of aggravated robbery. On 14 January 1999 he was released. On 25 November 1999 the Graz Regional Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant as it found no further reason to prosecute him. On 25 January 2000 the Review Chamber of the Graz Regional Court ( Ratskammer ), sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s request for compensation for detention on remand under the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act. The applicant appealed against this decision and requested a public hearing. On 2 March 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on 15 March 2000. On 10 December 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 applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. COMPLAINT The applicant complains 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 29 January 2003 the Government informed the Court that by decision of 10 December 2002 the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Review Chamber of the Graz Regional Court of 25 January 2000 and the decision of the Graz Court of Appeal of 2   March 2000 and remitted the case to the Graz Regional Court for deciding again on the applicant’s compensation claim. The applicant 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 applicant no longer intends pursuing his application and that the matter has been resolved since the applicant’s complaint relates to proceedings which have been quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the failure to hold a hearing violated the applicant’s 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 [Note1]   To be checked.