FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4263/09
by Maria VÖGEL
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maria Vögel, is an Austrian national who lives in Langenegg. She was represented before the Court by Mr W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz. 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 facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
On 9 December 2002 the applicant applied for a building permit for extending the already existing and authorised solar panel installation on her house by two solar trackers.
In a decision of 24 January 2003 the Mayor of the Langenegg Municipality refused to grant authorisation for the solar trackers.
On 6 November 2003 the Langenegg Municipality, having obtained the opinion of an official expert, S., and the applicant's comments thereon, dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant's further appeal to the Bregenz District Administrative Authority was of no avail.
On 3 March 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court.
On 26 May 2008 the Administrative Court, having held a hearing with the parties and the official expert, S., dismissed the applicant's complaint as being unfounded.
The judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 3 July 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the Administrative Court.
Furthermore she complained under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings were unfair and violated the principle of equality of arms on account of the participation of an official expert.
THE LAW
On 27 January 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Brigitte Ohms, Deputy Government Agent of Austria, Federal Chancellery, Legal and Constitutional Service, declare that the Government of Austria offer to pay 3,500 euros to Ms Maria Vögel 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 12 March 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Ms Maria Vögel, note that the Government of Austria are prepared to pay me the sum of 3,500 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 nopublic policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In 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