CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Resolution ResDH(2000)132 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 April 2000 (final on 4 July 2000) in the case of Pfleger W. and H. against Austria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 October 2000 at the 721st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Pfleger case delivered on 4 April 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Article   44 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 27648/95) against Austria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 March 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Willibald Pfleger and Ms Hermine Pfleger, two Austrian nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible their complaints relating to the lack of a public hearing and of any public delivery of the decisions in land consolidation proceedings involving the applicants’ property; Whereas in its judgment of 4 April 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the Government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list; Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Republic of Austria would pay the applicants a sum amounting altogether to 40 000 Austrian schillings as compensation in respect of any possible claims relating to the present application, this sum includes an amount of 30   000 Austrian schillings in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court; Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of former Article 54 which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases transmitted to it under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Noting that measures were already taken following the case of Stallinger and Kuso against Austria (see Resolution DH (97) 405); Having satisfied itself that in June 2000, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicants the sum provided for in the friendly settlement, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.