CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 décembre 1973

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  In November 1973 the Committee of Ministers, exercising its function under the European Convention on Human Rights to supervise the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, discussed the action taken by the Austrian Government pursuant to the judgment which the European Court of Human Rights had delivered in the "Ringeisen Case".   Michael Ringeisen introduced his application to the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 July 1965 (No. 2614/65).   In this application he submitted a series of complaints, some concerning the criminal proceedings brought against him and others relating to administrative and civil cases which he had introduced before the Austrian authorities alleging the violation of several articles of the Convention and the First Protocol.   The European Commission of Human Rights on 19 July 1968 declared three of the applicant's complaints admissible.   In its report transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on 29 April   1970, the Commission expressed the opinion:   - by eleven votes to one that the applicant's detention lasted beyond "a   reasonable time", with the result that, in this case, there was a violation of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3);   - that neither in the fraud case (unanimously) nor in the fraudulent bankruptcy case (eleven votes to one) did the length of the criminal proceedings taken against the applicant exceed "a reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1);   - by seven votes to five that there was no violation of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) (right to fair trial) in the proceedings for approval of the contracts for the sale of land because the proceedings did not involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1).   The Commission referred this case, on 24 July 1970, to the European Court of Human Rights to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether the facts of the case did or did not disclose, on the part of Austria, a violation of its obligations under Articles 5 (3) and 6 (1) (art. 5-3, art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights, on 16 July 1971, delivered a judgment in which it:   held unanimously that in the proceedings in question there was no violation of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1);   - held by five votes to two that the detention of the applicant constituted a breach of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) from 14 May 1965 to 14 January 1966;   - held by four votes to three that likewise after 14 January 1966, and up to 20 March 1967, the detention was continued in breach of the same provision of the Convention;   - reserved for the applicant the right, should the occasion arise, to apply for just satisfaction as regards these violations.   Mr Ringeisen then requested that the Court should award him full reparation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by reason of the excessive length of his detention on remand.   Assessing various factors, the Court considered that Mr Ringeisen should be afforded just satisfaction and in a judgment of 22 June 1972 fixed at 20 000 German marks   the overall sum to be paid to him in this regard by the Republic of Austria.   In a further judgment of 23 June 1973, interpreting the judgment above-mentioned, the Court held, by six votes to one, that the judgment of 22 June 1972 meant that the compensation in the sum of 20 000 German marks afforded to the applicant should be paid to him in that currency and in the Federal Republic of Germany; also by five votes to two that the same judgment meant that the aforementioned compensation was to be paid to Michael Ringeisen personally and free from attachment.   The Committee of Ministers has taken note that pursuant to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government of Austria has executed the judgment of the Court of 22 June 1972, as interpreted by the judgment of 23 June 1973.   The Committee of Ministers has also agreed that its task of supervising the execution of the judgment of the Court, in accordance with Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention, has now been completed in this case.