CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 17 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution ResDH(2001)170 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 19 December 2000 in the case of Edelmayer against Austria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001 at the 775 th 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Edelmayer case delivered on 19 December 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 33979/96) against Austria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 July 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Erwin Edelmayer, an Austrian national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the applicant’s conviction, in 1995, by the administrative authorities for driving while drunk and his subsequent conviction by the criminal courts, for causing injury by negligence whilst under the influence of alcohol (complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention); Whereas in its judgment of 19 December 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, 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 and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber; Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Austria would pay to the applicant’s representative, immediately after the notification of the judgment, a sum of 54 000 Austrian schillings in respect of any possible claims; 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 Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Austria recalled that measures have already been taken to resolve the problem at the origin of the complaints declared admissible in this case, notably through the abrogation – following a judgment of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Court of December 1996 – of the provisions in the Road Traffic Act which allowed a person to be judged for a second time by another jurisdiction in respect of facts that had already been the subject of a final judicial decision (see Resolution DH (97) 501 in the Gradinger case against Austria); Having satisfied itself that on 16 January 2001 the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant’s representative 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.