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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC135DF5 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 DECISION Application no. 69460/01 by Karl SCHUHMEIER 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 20 March 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Karl Schuhmeier, is an Austrian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Obergrafendorf. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Gloss, a lawyer practising in St. Pölten. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 11 July 2000 the applicant caused a road traffic accident in which his three passengers were slightly injured. On 28 September 2000 the St. Pölten District Administrative Authority ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) convicted the applicant of driving under the influence of drink, contrary to sections 5 (1) and 99 (1b) of the Road Traffic Act ( Strassenverkehrsordnung ) and sentenced him to pay a fine. On 5 December 2000 the St. Pölten District Court ( Bezirksgericht ) convicted the applicant under Article 88 §§ 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code ( Strafgesetzbuch ) of causing injury by negligence with the additional element of Article 81 § 2, namely “after allowing himself ... to become intoxicated ... through the consumption of alcohol, but not to an extent which exclude[d] his responsibility ...”. The court sentenced the applicant to pay a fine. On 24 February 2001 the St. Pölten Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complained about a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No.   7. THE LAW The Court observes that, by letter of 11 March 2003, the applicant’s counsel was invited to reply to the observations of the Government. Since he failed to reply, he was requested to do so by registered letter of 19 May 2003, which he received on 23 May 2003. His attention was drawn to Article 37 §1 (a) of the Convention which provides: “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.” The applicant’s counsel did not reply. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President