CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 10 juillet 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC18989D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .s86550280 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2ED52ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13pt } INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (98) 215   HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No. 23957/94   BREITENEDER AGAINST AUSTRIA   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 1998 at the 637th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the report drawn up on 14 January 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 17   March   1994 by an Austrian national, Mr   Johann   Breiteneder, against Austria;   Whereas on 18 February 1998 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a State entitled to do so under Article   48 of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering, however, that within this time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No.   9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 3 June 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention and with Article 48 of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 for those States having ratified the latter;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 27   February   1997, the applicant complained of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by eleven votes to five, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 637th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 10 July 1998, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention,     Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.