European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7301/05
by Michael SCHMEDT
against Austria

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2005,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Michael Schmedt, is an Austrian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Munderfing. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Postlmayr, a lawyer practising in Mattighofen. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant received a letter dated 24 May 2000 from the Vienna Umgebung District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) which, relying on section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrgesetz), requested him to disclose the identity of the driver of his car on 2 March 2000 at 10.38 a.m., since a traffic offence had been committed with his car. The applicant replied that he had driven his car on that day.

He then received a letter dated 11 July 2000 charging him with speeding and was asked to submit his defence. The applicant did so on 12 October 2000. Subsequently, he requested that the authority take evidence whether the speed limit was lawful and/or had been published properly. The authority did so and notified the applicant of the results on 11 December 2000.

On 13 February 2001 the Vienna Umgebung District Authority issued a penal order (Strafverfügung), finding the applicant guilty of speeding, sentencing him to a fine of 3,000 Austrian schillings (218 euros) and ordering him to pay the costs.

The applicant appealed against the penal order to the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). The Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the appeal by decision of 2 July 2001.

On 11 July 2001 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). On 3 September 2001 the Independent Administrative Panel filed observations in reply.

On 5 August 2004 the Administrative Court, relying on section 33a of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), refused to deal with the case, finding that it did not raise important legal issues. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 20 August 2004.

The applicant did not raise a complaint to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. He submitted in particular that there was a long period of inactivity before the Administrative Court.

THE LAW

On 4 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Ambassador F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the International Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, declare that the Government of Austria offer to pay 3,000 euros to Mr Michael Schmedt with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On 24 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Mr Michael Schmedt, note that the Government of Austria are prepared to pay me the sum of 3,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Austria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President