CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 31 juillet 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sE20A0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:12pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .sE9749AEB { width:285.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s39C0B46E { width:53.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE GEBHARD FIDLER c. AUTRICHE   CASE OF GEBHARD FIDLER v. AUSTRIA   (40/1998/943/1156)               DECISION                   STRASBOURG     31 juillet/July 1998   In the case of Gebhard Fidler v. Austria [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B [2] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 June 1998, and composed of the following judges:   Mrs   E. Palm , Chairwoman ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   R. Pekkanen , and also of Mr   H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 3 March 1998 by an Austrian national, Mr   Gebhard   Fidler, within the three-month period laid down by Article   32 §   1 and Article   47 of the Convention; Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article   46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court; Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 §   1   (a) or   (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission’s report of 3 December 1997 on the application (no. 23671/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr   Fidler on 13   December   1993; Whereas the applicant complained that the Austrian courts had not granted his request to be given access to his children from the morning until 4 p.m. on 24 December 1992, and alleged breaches of Article 6 § 1 (right of everyone to a hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for one’s family life) of the Convention; Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and awarding him just satisfaction; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.   Finds that (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the relevant requirements of Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention; and (b)   the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;   2.   Decides , therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court. Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 31 July 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.         Signed : Elisabeth Palm   Chairwoman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar   Notes by the Registrar [1] .     The case is numbered 40/1998/943/1156. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. [2] .     Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No.   9.