Schifferl v. Austria

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 59923/08 by Thomas SCHIFFERL against Austria

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Anatoly Kovler, President, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2008,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Thomas Schifferl, is an Austrian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Wolfsberg. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.

On 7 June 2011 and 17 June 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Austria in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 4,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum 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 undertook 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.

THE LAW

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 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.

André Wampach Anatoly Kovler Deputy Registrar President