CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 mai 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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5B9812EB { width:22.1pt; 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. May 1997 Pauger v. Austria - 16717/90 Judgment 28.5.1997 Article 6 Constitutional proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Public hearing Lack of a public hearing in the Constitutional Court in proceedings concerning entitlement to a survivor's pension: Article 6 § 1 applicable ; no 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.] A.   Applicability Applicant in principle entitled to a survivor's pension - claim in Constitutional Court that transitional provisions under which he was granted only a reduced pension were unconstitutional - there was a " contestation " (dispute) concerning the scope of his rights to a pension and even as to their existence - right in question was civil right - Constitutional Court's judgment directly decisive for his right.   Conclusion : applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance 1.     Austria's reservation Section 19 (4) of Constitutional Court Act came into force in 1984, whereas Convention was ratified and reservation made in 1958 - no provision like new paragraph 4 of that section in force when reservation made - section not covered by Austria's reservation. 2.     Merits of the complaint Applicant was in principle entitled to a public hearing in the Constitutional Court as the other bodies which ruled on his pension claim were wholly administrative bodies. However, Constitutional Court did not as a rule hear parties unless one of them expressly asked it to do so - applicant made no such request, although a professor of public law and therefore familiar with Constitutional Court procedure - unequivocally waived his right to a public hearing. Mr Pauger's application only related to constitutionality of transitional provisions of 1985 Act, which were unfavourable to widowers - question of principle of equality between widows and widowers as regards pension entitlement had already been resolved by Constitutional Court in a previous judgment - case did not raise matter of public interest such as warranted a public hearing. Conclusion : no violation (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