CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .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 } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sDB3D064B { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .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 } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 59879/00 by Alois BERKMANN against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   November 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   P. Kūris ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mrs   E. Steiner, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2000, Having regard to the partial decision of 14 November 2002, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Alois Berkmann, is a Austrian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Riefensberg (Austria). He is represented before the Court by Mr W. L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz (Austria). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 12 July 1988 the applicant filed an application for a building permit for camping ground I. These proceedings were suspended due to pending proceedings concerning camping ground II which was situated in the immediate neighbourhood. On 31 January 1991 the final decision in the proceedings concerning camping ground II was served and on 11 February 1991 the applicant filed a request to reopen the suspended building permit proceedings. On 15 Mai 1991 the District Administrative Authority ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) held a hearing concerning the building permit. On 14 November 1991 the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction ( Devolutionsantrag ), as the District Administrative Authority failed to decide on his application within the statutory six month-period. On 16 March 1992 the Vorarlberg Regional Government ( Landesregierung ) allowed this request but dismissed the applicant’s application for the building permit. On 25 April 1996 the Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s complaint and quashed the Regional Government’s decision. On 3 November 1998 the Regional Government granted the building permit for camping ground I. On 17 December 1998 Mr B, who ran camping ground II, filed a complaint against that decision with the Administrative Court. On 5 December 2000 the Administrative Court dismissed Mr B’s complaint and confirmed the Regional Government’s decision to grant the building permit for camping ground I to the applicant. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 23 October 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that, the Government offer to pay the amount of 8,400 euros (EUR) to Alois   BERKMANN in respect of the application no. 59879/00 on an ex gratia basis for the withdrawal of his application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 8,400) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be paid free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months from the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 14 October 2003 the Court received the following declaration from the applicant: “I note that the Austrian Government offer to pay me the amount of 8,400 euros (EUR) on an ex gratia basis in respect of the above application pending before the Court. This sum (EUR 8,400) shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It will be paid free of any taxes that may be applicable, within three months from the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the offer and withdraw the application waiving any further claims against Austria in respect of the application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.” The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President