CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)112 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Morscher against Austria   (Application No. 54039/00, judgment of 5 February 2004, final on 5 May 2004)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before local and regional authorities and the Administrative Court regarding a building permit (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1), (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Austria's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)112   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Morscher against Austria   Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings, first before the Weiler Municipality, the Feldkirch District Authority and the Vorarlberg Regional Government and, secondly before the Administrative Court, regarding the applicant's application for a planning permission to set up a wood-chipper and build a store on his land. The proceedings lasted more than six years (from May 1994 to August 2000) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   As regards in particular the proceedings before the District Authority and the Regional Government, these authorities did not respect the statutory six-month limit for deciding applications and appeals. What is more, the Municipality failed to issue a re-allocation plan within the statutory time-limit.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total   Paid on 4   000 € 3   293.34 € 7   293.34 € 19/07/2004     b) Individual measures   None, the proceedings are closed. In addition, the applicant has been granted planning permission to build on his land.     II.   General measures   To ensure that local and regional authorities respect the statutory rules regarding their administrative decision-making, the Regional Government of Vorarlberg sent out an explanatory circular stressing the legal obligations of the competent authorities. The respondent state also provided detailed information regarding the use of modern information technology to accelerate administrative proceedings. Among numerous projects concerning e-government, the internet platform www.help.gv.at provides information as well as electronic forms . This platform is expected further to facilitate administrative proceedings.   With regard to accelerating proceedings before the Administrative Court, the case presents similarities to that of G.S. (judgment of 21 December 1999, see Resolution ResDH(2004)77) in the context of which a number of reforms were adopted. As a result, the respondent state indicated that in 2004 the Administrative Court once again managed to reduce the number of cases pending for more than three years.   As with all judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning a violation at the level of the Administrative Court, the Morscher judgment was automatically transmitted to the Presidency of that Court. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice (RIS). Judgments of the European Court concerning Austria are habitually published in a summary version via www.menschenrechte.ac.at together with a link to the Court's judgments in English.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies