D. As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (paras )... 10
|
|
- Shana Greer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No /90 Johann Pramstaller against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-11) C. The present Report (paras ) II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras ) A. The particular circumstances of the case (paras ) B. Relevant domestic law (paras ) III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras ) A. Complaint declared admissible (para. 33) B. Points at issue (para. 34) C. As to the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention (paras ) a. The existence of a "criminal charge" (paras b. The reservation to Article 5 of the Convention (paras ) D. As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (paras ) a. The administrative authorities (paras ) b. The scope of review of the decisions of Seite 1
2 the administrative authorities (paras ) CONCLUSION (para. 52) c. The absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court (para. 53) CONCLUSION (para. 54) E. Recapitulation (paras ) CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. F. ERMACORA APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX II : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION I. INTRODUCTION 1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission. A. The application 2. The applicant is an Austrian citizen, resident in Lienz. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz. 3. The application is directed against Austria. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Cede, head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 4. The case concerns administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant before administrative authorities with subsequent review by the Constitutional and Administrative Courts. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. B. The proceedings 5. The application was introduced on 18 May 1990 and registered on 13 June On 16 October 1991 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits. 7. The Government's observations were submitted on 21 February The applicant replied, after expiry of the time-limit for submission of observations, on 12 June On 15 February 1993 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties in this case and in Applications Nos /89, 15527/89, 15963/90, 16718/90 and 16841/90. The hearing was held on 10 May The Government were represented by Ambassador Cede and Ms. S. Bernegger, of the Federal Chancellery. The applicant was represented by Mr. Weh. 9. On 10 May 1993 the Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention. It Seite 2
3 declared the remainder of the application admissible. 10. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19 May 1991 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. The Government submitted observations on 27 May After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected. C. The present Report 12. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present : MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President A. WEITZEL F. ERMACORA G. JÖRUNDSSON A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS Mrs. G.H. THUNE Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs. J. LIDDY MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ B. MARXER G.B. REFFI M.A. NOWICKI 13. The text of this Report was adopted on 19 May 1994 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention. 14. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is : (i) to establish the facts, and (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention. 15. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II. 16. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission. II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A. The particular circumstances of the case 17. On 10 November 1987 the Lienz District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) served a penal order (Straferkenntnis) on the applicant for failure to erect a wall forming part of a building for which planning permission had been granted on 17 March 1987, contrary to Sections 53 (1) (a) and 25 (a) of the Tyrol Building Regulations (Tiroler Bauordnung). Seite 3
4 18. He was ordered to pay a fine of AS 50,000 with fifty days' imprisonment in default, plus costs. The applicant, represented by the firm which, in the meantime, had taken a lease of the property from the applicant, appealed to the Tyrol Provincial Government (Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung) which, on 22 March 1988, rejected the applicant's appeal. 19. The applicant made a complaint to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), alleging, inter alia, violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court, in summary proceedings, declined to deal with the case. 20. On 14 September 1989, the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) rejected the applicant's complaint. As to Article 6 of the Convention, the Administrative Court referred to the Constitutional Court's decision, which had found the applicant's constitutional arguments not relevant. B. Relevant domestic law 21. Section 53 (1) of the Tyrol Building Regulations 1978 (Tiroler Bauordnung) provides, so far as relevant, as follows: "Eine Verwaltungsübertretung begeht, wer a) ein bewilligungspflichtiges Bauvorhaben ohne Bewilligung ausführt oder mit der Ausführung vor dem Eintritt der Rechtskraft der Baubewilligung beginnt..." "An administrative offence is committed by any person who (a) undertakes construction work for which permission is necessary without permission or commences such work before the permission becomes final..." 22. Section 25 of the Tyrol Building Regulations provides: "Einer Bewilligung der Behörde bedarf: a) der Neu-, Zu- und Umbau von Gebäuden; b) die sonstige Änderung von Gebäuden oder Gebäudeteilen, soweit sie die Festigkeit, die Feuersicherheit, die sanitären Verhältnisse oder das äußere Erscheinungsbild des Gebäudes beeinflußt;..." "The authority's permission is needed for: (a) new, additional and conversion construction work; (b) other amendments to buildings or parts of buildings, to the extent that the building's rigidity, fire safety, plumbing equipment or the external appearance are affected;..." 23. Provision for the administrative criminal offence of failure to comply with planning permission was made in Section 61 together with Section 41 of the Tyrol Building Regulations Jurisdiction of the Constitutional and Administrative Courts 24. According to Article 144 of the Austrian Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) an appeal can be filed with the Constitutional Court in which an applicant can allege a violation of his constitutional rights. He can also complain that his rights have been violated on account of an unlawful ordinance, an unconstitutional Act, or an unlawful international treaty. Seite 4
5 25. Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution provides as follows: "Der Verfassungsgerichtshof kann die Behandlung einer Beschwerde bis zur Verhandlung durch Beschluß ablehnen, wenn sie keine hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg hat oder von der Entscheidung die Klärung einer verfassungsrechtlichen Frage nicht zu erwarten ist. Die Ablehnung der Behandlung ist unzulässig, wenn es sich um einen Fall handelt, der nach Art. 133 von der Zuständigkeit des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes ausgeschlossen ist." "The Constitutional Court may refuse to consider a case up to a hearing by way of decision if it has no reasonable prospect of success or it cannot be expected that the decision will shed light on a problem of constitutional law. A refusal to consider is inadmissible if it concerns a case excluded from the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court by Article 133." 26. According to Article 130 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution the Administrative Court will review allegations of unlawfulness of an administrative decision. According to Article 130 para. 2, "no unlawfulness exists where legislation does not establish a binding rule on an administrative authority's conduct, leaving the determination of such conduct to the authority itself, and the authority has made use of this discretion in the spirit of the law" ("Rechtswidrigkeit liegt nicht vor, soweit die Gesetzgebung von einer bindenden Regelung des Verhaltens der Verwaltungsbehörde absieht und die Bestimmung dieses Verhaltens der Behörde selbst überläßt, die Behörde aber von diesem freien Ermessen im Sinne des Gesetzes Gebrauch gemacht hat"). The Administrative Court is also competent to deal with complaints that the administrative authority has violated its duty to take a decision (Article 132). 27. Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) provides, so far as relevant: "(1) Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof hat, soweit er nicht Rechtswidrigkeit wegen Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde oder wegen Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften gegeben findet ( 42 Abs. 2 Z. 2 und 3)..., den angefochtenen Bescheid auf Grund des von der belangten Behörde angenommenen Sachverhaltes im Rahmen der geltend gemachten Beschwerdepunkte... zu überprüfen. Ist er der Ansicht, dass für die Entscheidung über die Rechtswidrigkeit des Bescheides in einem der Beschwerdepunkte... Gründe massgebend sein könnten, die einer Partei bisher nicht bekanntgegeben wurden, so hat er die Parteien darüber zu hören und, wenn nötig, eine Vertagung zu verfügen." "(1) In so far as the Administrative Court does not find unlawfulness on account of a lack of jurisdiction of the authority against which the appeal is directed or on account of a violation of procedural provisions (Section 42 (2) (2) and (3),..., the Court must examine the contested decision on the basis of the facts as accepted by the authority against which the appeal is directed within the framework of the alleged complaint... If it is of the opinion that reasons would be relevant for the decision on the unlawfulness of the contested decision... which were so far not known to a party, it must hear the parties thereupon and, if necessary, adjourn the proceedings." Seite 5
6 28. Section 42 (1) of the Administrative Court Act states that, save as otherwise provided, decisions of the Administrative Court shall either dismiss a complaint as ill-founded or quash the contested decision. Apart from amendments to that part of Section 42 (1) which enumerates those proceedings to which it does not apply (not relevant in the present case) Section 42 (1) has been in force since at least As regards the decisions of the Administrative Court, Section 42 (2) of the Administrative Court Act provides, so far as relevant: "(2) Der angefochtene Bescheid ist aufzuheben 1. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes, 2. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde, 3. wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften, und zwar weil a) der Sachverhalt von der belangten Behörde in einem wesentlichen Punkt aktenwidrig angenommen wurde oder b) der Sachverhalt in einem wesentlichen Punkt einer Ergänzung bedarf oder c) Verfahrensvorschriften ausser acht gelassen wurden, bei deren Einhaltung die belangte Behörde zu einem anderen Bescheid hätte kommen können." "(2) The contested decision must be quashed 1. on account of the unlawfulness of its content, 2. on account of unlawfulness due to the lack of jurisdiction of the authority against which the appeal is directed, 3. on account of unlawfulness due to a violation of procedural provisions in particular because a) the authority against which the appeal is directed has determined the facts on an important point contrary to the case-file, or b) the facts require to be supplemented on an important point, or c) procedural provisions have been disregarded which, if taken into consideration by the authority against which the appeal is directed, could have led to a different decision of the authority." Hearings before the Administrative Court 30. Section 39 (1) of the Administrative Court Act provides that the Administrative Court is to hold a hearing after its preliminary investigation of the case where a complainant has requested a hearing within the time-limit. Section 39 (2) provides as follows: "Der Verwaltungsgerichtshof kann ungeachtet eines Parteiantrages nach Abs. 1 Z. 1 von einer Verhandlung absehen, wenn 1. das Verfahren einzustellen ( 33) oder die Beschwerde zurückzuweisen ist ( 34); 2. der angefochtene Bescheid wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Unzuständigkeit der belangten Behörde aufzuheben ist ( 42 Abs. 2 Z. 2); 3. der angefochtene Bescheid wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften aufzuheben ist ( 42 Abs. 2 Z. 3); Seite 6
7 4. der angefochtene Bescheid nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes wegen Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes aufzuheben ist; 5. weder die belangte Behörde noch etwaige Mitbeteiligte eine Gegenschrift eingebracht haben und der angefochtene Bescheid aufzuheben ist; 6. die Schriftsätze der Parteien des verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahrens und die dem Verwaltungsgerichtshof vorgelegten Akten des Verwaltungsverfahrens erkennen lassen, daß die mündliche Erörterung eine weitere Klärung der Rechtssache nicht erwarten läßt." "Notwithstanding a party's application, the Administrative Court may decide not to hold a hearing when 1. The proceedings are to be discontinued (Section 33) or the complaint is to be rejected (Section 34); 2. The contested decision is to be quashed for unlawfulness due to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the authority challenged (Section 42 (2) (2)); 3. The contested decision is to be quashed for failure to comply with procedural provisions (Section 42 (2) (3)); 4. The contested decision is to be quashed in accordance with the constant case-law of the Administrative Court for unlawfulness as to its contents; 5. Neither the authority challenged nor any third party has submitted a reply and the contested decision is to be quashed; 6. It is apparent from the written pleadings of the parties to the proceedings before the Administrative Court and from the files relating to the prior proceedings that an oral hearing is not likely to contribute to clarifying the case." 31. Section 39 (2) (1) to (2) (3) were in force in Section 39 (2) (4) and (2) (5) were added in 1964 and Section 39 para. 2 (6) was added in Article 90 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution provides as follows: "Die Verhandlungen in Zivil- und Strafrechtssachen vor dem erkennenden Gericht sind mündlich und öffentlich. Ausnahmen bestimmt das Gesetz." "Hearings in civil and criminal cases by the trial court shall be oral and public. Exceptions may be prescribed by law." III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION A. Complaint declared admissible 33. The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint that the proceedings in which he was convicted of failing to erect a wall did not comply with Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. B. Points at issue 34. The issues to be determined are: - whether there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, and Seite 7
8 - whether the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court violated Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. C. As to the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention a. The existence of a "criminal charge" 35. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows: "In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." 36. In the proceedings in the present case, the applicant was convicted of failing to erect a wall which had been required by planning permission. He was fined AS 50,000, to be replaced by fifty days' detention in default. 37. The applicant considers that the proceedings determined a criminal charge. With reference to the case-law of the Convention organs, the Government do not contest the claim, but point to various features of this type of offence which, in their view, call for a differentiated approach to administrative criminal offences (Verwaltungsstrafsachen) when compared with ordinary, judicial criminal offences. They note, for instance, that criminal records do not make reference to administrative convictions, that administrative criminal law is not directed against the commission of social wrong but serves the purpose of maintaining public order, and that the offences are of a minor and frequently purely formal character (nonregistration for example). 38. The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has applied the same test for the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) to regulatory offences (Ordnungswidrigkeiten) in Germany as to other types of proceedings (Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, para. 50). The Commission notes that administrative criminal proceedings in Austria are regulated by special legislative provisions which are separate from the ordinary criminal law. The proceedings are, however, expressly referred to as administrative "criminal" proceedings, and the Commission finds that this gives an indication of their nature. The penalty, of AS 50,000 with fifty days' detention in default, cannot be described as negligible. 39. Taking into account the classification as "administrative criminal" of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence as failure to comply with a specific regulation, and the nature of the penalty, which included the possibility of imprisonment, the Commission finds that the proceedings at issue in the present case determined a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. b. The reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention 40. The Government submit that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention prevents the Commission from entertaining this complaint. This reservation provides as follows: "The provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention shall be so applied that there shall be no interference with measures for the deprivation of liberty prescribed in the laws on administrative procedure, BGBl. No. 172/1950, subject to review by the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court as provided for in the Austrian Federal Constitution." 41. The applicant points out that the laws on administrative procedure BGBl. No. 172/1950 contain very few criminal offences, and Seite 8
9 not that at issue in the present case, such that the reservation cannot be relevant. The Government consider that the reservation must be taken to apply not merely to actual measures of detention under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, but also to the proceedings which may lead to such detention, and they refer to Commission caselaw to this effect (eg. No. 8998/80, Dec , D.R. 32, p. 150). 42. The Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has recently had occasion to affirm the validity of the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) (Eur. Court H.R., Chorherr judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266, p. 35, para. 21). In particular, the Court emphasised that the laws referred to in the reservation "lay down rules for the punishment of offences, setting out the punishable acts, the penalties incurred and the procedure to be followed" (p. 34, para. 18). The Court continued that "the provisions to which the reservation applied in [that] case were all in force on 3 September " (ibid). 43. The Commission notes that the applicant was convicted under the Tyrol Building Regulations Similar regulations were in force in 1958, when the reservation was entered, under the Building Regulations However, the Regulations are Regional (Land) regulations rather than State (Bund) regulations, and they are not referred to in the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention. Accordingly, neither the punishable act nor the penalty imposed were included in the laws referred to in the reservation. Finally in this respect, the Commission notes that the Austrian reservation to Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention in terms refers to Article 5 (Art. 5) and not to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. 44. The Commission finds that that reservation cannot be said to apply in the present case. Accordingly, the reservation does not prevent the Commission from examining the complaint under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. D. As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention a. The administrative authorities 45. The applicant considers that the administrative authorities which considered the case, namely the Lienz District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) and the Tyrol Provincial Government (Landesregierung) are officials following instructions, and in no way independent judges. The Government do not contest this, but point to procedural rules which apply before the administrative authorities. 46. The Commission finds that the administrative authorities which decided the applicant's case at first and second instance were not "independent and impartial tribunals" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 22, para. 70; Zumtobel judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, para. 29). 47. The decisions of the administrative authorities may give rise to appeals to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), but the proceedings for the consideration of such appeals will be consistent with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) only if conducted before "judicial bodies that have full jurisdiction" (above-mentioned Zumtobel judgment, para. 29 with further reference). b. The scope of review of the decisions of the administrative authorities 48. The Commission must therefore examine the scope of review offered by the Austrian judicial authorities in this determination of a criminal charge in order to establish whether the applicant was able Seite 9
10 to take his case before a tribunal that did offer the guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) (above-mentioned Öztürk judgment, p. 22, para. 56). 49. The applicant considers that where Article 6 (Art. 6) is applicable, the Convention requires a court which can determine all aspects of the case. He points out that new evidence cannot be submitted to the Administrative Court by virtue of Section 41 of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), that the Administrative Court does not permit the assessment of the evidence by the administrative authorities to be challenged, and that the Administrative Court can only quash decisions, and cannot substitute its assessment of the facts. The Government accept that, if Article 6 (Art. 6) applies to the proceedings, the Administrative Court does not fulfil the requirements of the provision. 50. It has not been suggested in the present case that the Constitutional Court satisfied the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. 51. The Commission finds that whilst in civil matters a somewhat limited review of the decisions of administrative authorities may, in certain circumstances, satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (see, for example, the above-mentioned Zumtobel judgment, and Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, para. 58), criminal cases may require a different approach. In particular, they involve rules directed towards all citizens, which prescribe conduct of a certain kind and create sanctions for non-compliance. Where a defendant desires a court to determine a criminal charge against him, there is no room for limitation on the scope of review required of the decisions of administrative authorities. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant in the present case was entitled to, but did not have the benefit of, a court which could consider all the facts of the case. CONCLUSION 52. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. c. The absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court 53. In the light of its above finding that the applicant was denied his right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the Commission finds that no separate issue arises in connection with the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court. CONCLUSION 54. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court raises no separate issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. E. Recapitulation 55. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 52). 56. The Commission concludes, unanimously, that the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court raises no separate issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (para. 54). Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission Seite 10
11 (H.C. KRÜGER) PRAMSTALLER_v._AUSTRIA[1] (C.A. NØRGAARD) CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. F. ERMACORA (Or. English) I agree with the Commission that the scope of review afforded by the Administrative Court does not comply with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. However, the Commission finds that no separate issue arises in connection with the absence of a hearing before the Administrative Court. I consider that a separate issue does arise in this case because the Austrian reservation to Article 6 has just such a separate wording and function from the other reservation which Austria has declared to Article 6 in general. The difference lies in the fact that the Austrian reservation does not concern the administrative procedural law directly but Article 90 para. 2 of the Constitution which states that "Hearings in civil and criminal cases by the trial court shall be oral and public. Exceptions may be prescribed by law". This reservation is not at all applicable to procedures before the Administrative and Constitutional Courts because these courts do not deal with cases in civil and criminal cases but in cases of a public law character. The reservation cannot be understood in any other way because the meaning of the reservation at the time it was made must be respected. In 1958, when the reservation was made, Article 90 of the Constitution could not have the meaning which the Commission now gives to the reservation. In long before the Ringeisen case - Article 90 could in no way be applicable to procedures before the Constitutional Court because Article 90 (2) from a systematic point of view falls within the chapter of the Constitution dealing with civil and criminal law before the ordinary courts and not the part dealing with public law, which is regulated by Article 137 et seq. of the Constitution. The Commission should have entered into this question which shows that the reservation is not at all applicable in the case. The interpretation of this reservation is contrary to the scope of the reservation and therefore the Commission should have applied Article 6 with reference to the misinterpretation of the said reservation. The Commission should have considered this fact as a separate issue as to the interpretation of the Austrian reservation. This brings me to the same result as the other members, but based rather on a different interpretation of the reservation. APPENDIX I HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Date Item Introduction of application Registration of application Examination of admissibility Commission's decision to communicate the case to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit observations on admissibility and merits Seite 11
12 Government's observations Applicant's observations in reply Commission's decision to hold a hearing Hearing on admissibility and merits, the parties being represented as follows : Government : Applicant : Ambassador Cede Ms. S. Bernegger, Federal Chancellery Mr. W. L. Weh Examination of the merits Commission's decision to declare application in part admissible and in part inadmissible Commission's consideration of state of proceedings Commission's consideration of state of proceedings Commission's deliberations on the merits, final vote and consideration of text of the Report Adoption of Report Seite 12
D. As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (paras )... 10
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 16718/90 Peter Palaoro against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16)......................1
More informationSCHMAUTZER_v._AUSTRIA[1]
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15523/89 Peter Schmautzer against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16)......................1
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /86. Firma F.M. ZUMTOBEL and Martin ZUMTOBEL. against AUSTRIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 12235/86 Firma F.M. ZUMTOBEL and Martin ZUMTOBEL against AUSTRIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 30 June 1992) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION
More informationFISCHER v. AUSTRIA. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members being present:
FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16922/90 by Josef FISCHER against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /91. Anders Fredin. against. Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 9 February 1993)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18928/91 Anders Fredin against Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 9 February 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1
More information1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Seite 1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 13126/87 Karl SEKANINA against AUSTRIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 20 May 1992) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1
More informationE. Recapitulation (paras )... 12
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18892/91 Wilhelm Putz against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 11 October 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)......................1
More informationFRIEDL_v._AUSTRIA[1] Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-9)...
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15225/89 Ludwig Friedl against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)......................
More informationSeite 1 von 10 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 24208/94 by Karlheinz DEMEL against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the
More informationO. v. AUSTRIA. Page I. INTRODUCTION (para. 1) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-10)... 1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 12884/87 O. against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 14 May 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (para. 1)..........................
More informationSeite 1 von 10 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST CHAMBER Application No. 25629/94 H.F. K-F. against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 10 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /91. Wiktor Olesen. against. Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 18068/91 Wiktor Olesen against Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 18 October 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 12945/87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 April 1990, the following members being
More informationSeite 1 von 8 In the case of Mauer v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /92. Zoltán Szücs. against. Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 3 September 1996)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 20602/92 Zoltán Szücs against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-15)......................1
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 19011/91 by M.T.J. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF application no. 34311/96 by Adolf HUBNER against
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 11921/86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 October
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 36773/97 by Herwig NACHTMANN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 1998, the following members
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 17392/90 by W.M. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present: MM. S. TRECHSEL,
More informationCASE_OF_ORTENBERG_v._AUTRICHE[1]
In the case of Ortenberg v. Austria*, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationMcCANN, FARRELL AND SAVAGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18984/91 by Margaret McCANN, Daniel FARRELL and John SAVAGE against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 September
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25062/94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the following members being
More informationVerbrechen des Angriffskriegs
IMT-Statut [IMTFE] Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF JULIUS KLOIBER SCHLACHTHOF GMBH AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA. (Applications nos /07, 21572/07, 21575/07 and 21580/07) JUDGMENT
FIRST SECTION CASE OF JULIUS KLOIBER SCHLACHTHOF GMBH AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA (Applications nos. 21565/07, 21572/07, 21575/07 and 21580/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 April 2013 This judgment will become final
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by M.C. against the Federal Republic of Germany
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13079/87 by M.C. against the Federal Republic of Germany The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 March 1989, the following members being
More informationDamages for the Injuring or Killing of an Animal in Swiss Law
Damages for the Injuring or Killing of an Animal in Swiss Law By Dr. Eveline Schneider Kayasseh 1 I. Introduction On 1 April 2003, after perennial preparatory work and heated public debates, new provisions
More informationMr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present: MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President C. A. NØRGAARD G. SPERDUTI M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES G. JÖRUNDSSON
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28288/95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. Application No /84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY Application No. 10825/84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1987, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13057/87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 March 1989, the following members being present: MM.
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28268/95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16152/90 by Ahmed LAMGUINDAZ against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members
More informationDECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark
1 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 May 1988, the following members
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 23959/94 Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 31 May 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16400/90 by H.S. and H.Y. against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF W. R. v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 26602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 December
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF FRANZ FISCHER v. AUSTRIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF FRANZ FISCHER v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 37950/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 26249/95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 February 1996, the following
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28858/95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members being present:
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF STEININGER v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 April 2012 FINAL 17/07/2012
FIRST SECTION CASE OF STEININGER v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 21539/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 April 2012 FINAL 17/07/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationHaving deliberated in private on 23 May and 31 August 1996,
In the case of Gaygusuz v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF JAKUPOVIC v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF JAKUPOVIC v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 36757/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 February
More informationDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
In the case of K. v. Austria*, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")**
More informationIn the case of Gaygusuz v. Austria,
In the case of Gaygusuz v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the
More informationService provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in cooperation with juris GmbH
Übersetzung durch Eileen Flügel Translation provided by Eileen Flügel Stand: Verbraucherstreitbeilegungsgesetz vom 19. Februar 2016 (BGBl. I S. 254, 1039) Version information: Act on Alternative Dispute
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 29188/95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following
More informationIn the case of Friedl v. Austria (1),
In the case of Friedl v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationRechtsprechung (hrr-strafrecht.de)
Rechtsprechung (hrr-strafrecht.de) HRRS-Nummer: HRRS 2014 Nr. 1066 Bearbeiter: Karsten Gaede Zitiervorschlag: HRRS 2014 Nr. 1066, Rn. X EGMR Nr. 54648/09 - Urteil der 5. Sektion vom 23. Oktober 2014 (Furcht
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION)
STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION) This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 33029/96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being
More informationAct on Model Case Proceedings in Disputes under Capital Markets Law (Capital Markets Model Case Act KapMuG)
Übersetzung durch Jane Yager für das Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. Translation provided by Jane Yager for the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. Stand: Die Übersetzung
More informationPROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
C 83/210 Official Journal of the European Union 30.3.2010 PROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, DESIRING to lay down the Statute of
More informationEnforcement of [foreign] Awards
Enforcement of [foreign] Awards Universität Wien, Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät - VO Internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit RA Dr. Werner Jahnel, DES Vienna, 6 November 2015 Summary 1. Enforcement
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 22838/93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following
More informationSeite 1 von 12 In the case of Prötsch v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28389/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21
More informationThe Rule 164 Problem. Non unity objections as made by the EPO, and potential remedies. Presentation at VPP Bezirksgruppenveranstaltung April 28, 2010
The Rule 164 Problem Non unity objections as made by the EPO, and potential remedies Presentation at VPP Bezirksgruppenveranstaltung April 28, 2010 Dipl. Ing. Andreas Gröschel Dr. Ulrich Storz M I C H
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationVersion: Most recently amended by Art. 2 of the Act of 9 December 2010 I 1934
Act Implementing the Regulations of the European Community or of the European Union in the Field of Genetic Engineering and on Labelling of Food Manufactured without using Genetic Engineering Procedures
More informationPage. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-27) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-22)... 1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15318/89 Titina Loizidou against Turkey REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 8 July 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-27).......................
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF STOJAKOVIC v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 30003/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 November
More informationArgentina Argentine Argentinien. Report Q193. in the name of the Argentinian Group
Argentina Argentine Argentinien Report Q193 in the name of the Argentinian Group Divisional, Continuation and Continuation in Part Patent Applications Questions I) Analysis of the current law 1) Are divisional,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF YILDIZ v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 37295/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13445/87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1991, the following members being present:
More informationIn the case of Telesystem Tirol Kabeltelevision v. Austria (1),
In the case of Telesystem Tirol Kabeltelevision v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28923/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationApplication Nos /88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS. against IRELAND
Application Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS against IRELAND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 7 March 1991) TABLE OF CONTENTS page
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17899/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /94. Józef Michal Janowski. against. Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 25716/94 Józef Michal Janowski against Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION
More informationEUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Committee on Legal Affairs
EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2004 Committee on Legal Affairs 2009 2008/0130(CNS) 9.9.2008 * DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company (COM(2008)0396 C6-0283/2008
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF KLEMECO NORD AB v. SWEDEN (Application no. 73841/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationSeite 1 von 12 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 25711/94 C. M. L.-O. against Switzerland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 July 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2018
FIRST SECTION CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1
More information1. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 14 January 2009 (OJ L 24 of , p.
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL This edition consolidates: the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 (OJ L 225 of 29.8.2007, p.
More informationHow to Lodge a Constitutional Complaint. I. General Remarks
How to Lodge a Constitutional Complaint I. General Remarks Any person may lodge a constitutional complaint claiming that one of his or her fundamental rights or one of the rights laid down in Art. 20(4),
More informationorder to restrict general policing duties, in an internal situation characterized by frequent assassinations, to men equipped with firearms.
Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Case 222/84 1 Judgment of the Court of 15 May 1986. Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Reference
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 44704/98 by Kirsten NORMANN
More informationAct to Implement Certain Legal Instruments in the Field of International Family Law (International Family Law Procedure Act IFLPA)
Übersetzung durch Brian Duffett. Translation provided by Brian Duffett. Stand: Die Übersetzung berücksichtigt die Änderung(en) des Gesetzes durch Artikel 6 des Gesetzes vom 8.7.2014 (BGBl. I S. 890) Version
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /96. Ian Faulkner. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 30308/96 Ian Faulkner against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 December 1998) 30308/96 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationand also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 September 1996 and 27 January 1997,
In the case of Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
More informationSeite 1 von 13 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 21353/93 B. C. against Switzerland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF Y.F. v. TURKEY (Application no. 24209/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 July 2003
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE & OTHER CRUEL INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT and its Optional Protocol
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE & OTHER CRUEL INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT and its Optional Protocol Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Cambodia OHCHR Convention
More informationThe availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs
Question Q219 National Group: Austria Title: The availability of injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: Peter Pawloy, Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF KASTELIC v. CROATIA. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KASTELIC v. CROATIA (Application no. 60533/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationWherever there is scarcity of resources in relation to human
PROPERTY, CAUSALITY, AND LIABILITY HANS-HERMANN HOPPE I Wherever there is scarcity of resources in relation to human demand, the possibility of conflict arises. The solution to such conflict is the assignment
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38986/97 by P. W. against Denmark
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG v. AUSTRIA (no. 3) (Application no. 39069/97)
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18714/91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1994 the following members being
More informationADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION NO. 2008/6. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General,
UNITED NATIONS United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNMIK NATIONS UNIES Mission d Administration Intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo UNMIK/AD/2008/6 11 June 2008 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationTHE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, NO. 34 OF 2008 [31st December, 2008.]
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 NO. 34 OF 2008 [31st December, 2008.] An Act to constitute an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the
More informationDecision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee
Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented
More information