Case of European Court of Human Rights, November 24, 1997 (case CASE OF WERNER v. AUSTRIA)
Linked as:
Extract
Case of European Court of Human Rights, November 24, 1997 (case CASE OF WERNER v. AUSTRIA)
CASE OF WERNER v. AUSTRIA(138/1996/757/956) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 November 1997 The present judgment is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997. These reports are obtainable from the publisher Carl Heymanns Verlag KG (Luxemburger Straße 449, D-50939 Köln), who will also arrange for their distribution in association with the agents for certain countries as listed overleaf. List of Agents Belgium: Etablissements Emile Bruylant (rue de la Régence 67, B-1000 Bruxelles) Luxembourg: Librairie Promoculture (14, rue Duchscher (place de Paris), B.P. 1142, L-1011 Luxembourg-Gare) The Netherlands: B.V. Juridische Boekhandel & Antiquariaat A. Jongbloed & Zoon (Noordeinde 39, NL-2514 GC 's-Gravenhage)SUMMARY[1]JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY A CHAMBERAustria - no public hearing or public delivery of judgments by court of first instance and court of appeal in proceedings to claim compensation for detention (Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 and Article 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) -failure to communicate principal public prosecutor's observations in those proceedings before Court of Appeal (Article 35 § 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure in force at material time)I. article 6 § 1 of the convention A. Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Question closely bound up with merits of complaint.Conclusion: objection joined to merits (unanimously). B. Merits of complaint 1. Applicability Recapitulation of case-law. Applicant had had right to be compensated for his detention pending trial, provided that the statutory requirements had been satisfied - there had therefore been a contestation (dispute) over a right - outcome of proceedings in relevant criminal courts directly decisive for his right - applicant's right to compensation a civil one.Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). 2. Compliance (a) No public hearing or public delivery of judgments (i) Austria's reservation Issue not raised in Government's memorial to the Court - there was therefore an estoppel - unnecessary for Court to consider question of its own motion. (ii) Lack of a public hearing Recapitulation of case-law. Applicant in principle entitled to a public hearing - established that in practice there was never a public hearing in such proceedings - applicant could accordingly not beblamed for not having made an application which had no prospects of success - protection of applicant's private life did not prevail over principle laid down in Article 6 § 1 that proceedings must be pub...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
