CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 1 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFF5CEE3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .sB0DDE566 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:282.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:22.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF16E9E88 { width:52.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }           Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE RESCH c. AUTRICHE   CASE OF RESCH v. AUSTRIA   (60/1997/844/1050)           DÉCISION                   STRASBOURG     1er octobre/1 October 1997   In the case of Resch v. Austria [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B [2] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 28 August 1997, and composed of the following judges:   Mr   J. De Meyer , Chairman ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   N. Valticos , and also of Mr H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 9   June 1997 by an Austrian national, Mr Gerhard Resch, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 §   1 and Article 47 of the Convention; Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court; Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission's report of 9 April 1997 on the application (no. 21585/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr Resch on 28   December 1992; Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had access to a “tribunal” in administrative criminal proceedings before the Austrian Administrative Court, and alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under which “In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal   …”; Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarding him just satisfaction under Article 50; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule   34   §§   1   (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.   Finds that (a) the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court already has consistent case-law to the effect that, in administrative criminal proceedings, the Austrian Administrative Court does not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; and (b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission; 2.   Decides , therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court. Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 1 October 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.       Signed : Jan De Meyer Chairman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar Notes by the Registrar 1.     The case is numbered 60/1997/844/1050. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. 2.     Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.