CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC43FB860 { width:27.12pt; display:inline-block } .sFB5197D3 { width:24.9pt; display:inline-block } .s88A95348 { width:22.67pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. November 1997 Werner v. Austria - 21835/93 Judgment 24.11.1997 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Public hearing Public judgment No public hearing or public delivery of judgments by court of first instance and court of appeal in proceedings to claim compensation for detention and failure to communicate principal public prosecutor’s observations in those proceedings before Court of Appeal: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Question closely bound up with merits of complaint. Conclusion : objection joined to merits (unanimously). B.   Merits of complaint 1.   Applicability Applicant had had right to be compensated for his detention pending trial, provided that the statutory requirements had been satisfied – there had therefore been a contestation (dispute) over a right – outcome of proceedings in relevant criminal courts directly decisive for his right – applicant’s right to compensation a civil one. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). 2.   Compliance (a)   No public hearing or public delivery of judgments (i)   Austria’s reservation Issue not raised in Government’s memorial to the Court – there was therefore an estoppel – unnecessary for Court to consider question of its own motion. (ii)   Lack of a public hearing Applicant in principle entitled to a public hearing – established that in practice there was never a public hearing in such proceedings – applicant could accordingly not be blamed for not having made an application which had no prospects of success – protection of applicant’s private life did not prevail over principle laid down in Article 6 § 1 that proceedings must be public. Conclusion : objection dismissed and violation found (unanimously). (iii)   Failure to deliver judgments publicly The leave that could be given to third parties to obtain copies of judgments if they showed a legitimate interest did not amount to making the full texts of the judgments available to everyone – in Austria the possibility of obtaining those full texts existed only in respect of judgments of the Supreme Court, the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court – furthermore, no need for relevant courts to make statements which would breach principle of presumption of innocence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)   Fair hearing Principle of equality of arms dictated that principal public prosecutor’s observations should have been communicated to applicant and that he should have had opportunity to comment on them. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: no causal link between breaches complained of and pecuniary damage. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursement assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes