CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 17 avril 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Resolution ResDH(2001)60 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 1 August 2000 (final on 1 November 2000) in the case of Entleitner against Austria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 April 2001 at the 749 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Entleitner case delivered on 1 August 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention; Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 29544/95) against Austria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 September 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Helmut Entleitner, an Austrian national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the agricultural authorities in proceedings concerning share of an agricultural association and the absence of public hearing before the Administrative Court in 1995; Whereas in its judgment of 1 August 2000 the Court unanimously: - held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the applicant’s complaint that he was not able to bring his case before an independent and impartial tribunal; - held that there had been violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing before the Administrative Court; - held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 40 000 Austrian schillings in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; - dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction; Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention; Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 1 August 2000, having regard to Austria’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably through the entry into force on 1 September 1997 of the amendment to the Administrative Court Act which integrated into Austrian law the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention regarding the holding of public hearings (see Resolution DH (97) 405 in the Stallinger and Kuso case against Austria), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Having satisfied itself that on 1 December 2000, within the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of date 1 August 2000, Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.