CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 décembre 1992

.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 }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Pfeifer and Plankl case delivered on 25 February 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 September 1983 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Heinrich Pfeifer and Mrs Margit Plankl, Austrian nationals, who complained inter alia of the lack of impartiality of judges in a criminal procedure against the first applicant and of the censorship of correspondence between the applicants while both in detention on remand;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 November 1990 and by the Government of Austria on 6 February 1991;        Whereas in its judgment of 25 February 1992 the Court:   -     held, by eight votes to one, that it had jurisdiction      to examine the Government's preliminary objections;   -     by unanimous votes, joined to the merits the objection      relating to Mr Pfeifer's complaint based on Article 6,      paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), but dismissed it after      examining the merits;   -     held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of      Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);   -     held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine      the objection relating to the alleged violation of      Article 8 (art. 8) in the case of Mr Pfeifer;   -     held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of      Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;   -     held, unanimously, that the respondent State was      within three months to pay 20 000 Austrian schillings      to Mr Pfeifer and 1 500 Austrian schillings to      Mrs Plankl, and 60 000 Austrian schillings to the two      applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses;   -     dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for      just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Austria to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 February 1992, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Austria gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this eesolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of Austria has paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (92)64          Information provided by the Government of Austria     during the examination of the Pfeifer and Plankl case                  by the Committee of Ministers        By circular (Erlass) of 20 June 1992 the Federal Ministry of Justice drew the attention of the Appeal Court Presidents and of the General Prosecutors to the consequences to be drawn from the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), found by the Court in the present case and invited them to follow in future the following principles:        a. The question of the possible disqualification of all      trial judges must be clarified before a date for the      hearing is set.        b. If one of the judges called to sit is to be      disqualified, the accused must as a matter of principle      (grundsätzlich) not be invited to waive his right to apply      for disqualification of that judge.        c. Only in exceptional cases, for example when it would be      in the accused's interest not to have the proceedings      delayed, a waiver from the accused to apply for      disqualification could be envisaged, on the condition that      minimum procedural guarantees be respected, for example,      interrogation by a judge not concerned by the      disqualification and in the presence of the accused's      lawyer.        The sums awarded to the applicants by the Court were paid on 5 May 1992.