CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB965C79D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA0993303 { width:139.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF STEPHAN KUCERA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 13810/22)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Oral hearing in administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant held via videolink for all participants based on procedural rules enacted in the context of the COVID-2019 pandemic • In case-circumstances the applicant was able to fully enjoy his rights with respect to the holding of an oral hearing Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Public hearing • Information about the applicant’s hearing via videolink was sufficiently accessible to the public Art 6 § 3 (c) • Defence through legal assistance • Applicant and his lawyer were free to arrange their participation via videolink separately or jointly and to make arrangements for a separate private communication channel between them during the hearing • Manifestly ill-founded   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 9 December 2025   FINAL   09/03/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stephan Kucera v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13810/22) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Stephan Kucera (“the applicant”), on 9 March 2022; the decision to give notice to the Austrian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, concerning the hearing held by videolink (alleged violation of the right to participate effectively in the hearing and the alleged lack of a public hearing) in an administrative criminal case against the applicant and to declare inadmissible the complaints under Article 6 §   3 (d) and (e) in that the video hearing violated the principle of equality of arms and his right to examine the witness for the prosecution and to free interpretation; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) of the Convention in relation to an oral hearing, held in an administrative criminal case against him, that took place via videolink on the basis of procedural rules enacted in the context of the pandemic caused by the coronavirus-2019 disease (hereinafter “COVID-19”). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Vienna. He was represented by Mr T. Praschl-Bichler, a lawyer practising in Vienna. 3.     The Government were represented by their then Agent, Mr   K.   Bühler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs Agent. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The factual context of the covid-19 pandemic IN AUSTRIA 5.     As regards the national context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria (for the global context, see the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland   ([GC], no.   21881/20, §§ 11-18 and 64, 27   November 2023), a first nationwide lockdown was ordered from 16 March to 11   April 2020, which imposed a number of measures with a view to combatting the spread of COVID-19, including various restrictions on fundamental rights. Subsequently, Parliament enacted several legislative acts aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19 while maintaining the functioning of public life in the best way possible (see also paragraphs 29-34 below concerning the relevant legislative provisions adopted in that context). From 12 April to 31   August 2020 a gradual easing of restrictions took place, but a renewed increase in the number of daily infections was registered again from 1   September 2020 until 14   February 2021, which led to the introduction of various preventive measures such as keeping a minimum distance of one metre, the mandatory wearing of masks and other suitable technical and organisational measures at workplaces (the instalment of partitions or acrylic screens and so on). A second nationwide lockdown was subsequently introduced, which lasted from 3 November to 6 December 2020. The period from 15 February until 6   June 2021, in turn, was marked by mass vaccination, a stepped-up testing frequency and the opening of schools accompanied by prevention measures. Penalty notice issued by the municipality of Vienna 6 .     On 20 April 2020 the municipality of Vienna issued a penalty notice ( Straferkenntnis ) against the applicant for breaching the Vienna Betting Act ( Wiener Wettengesetz ). It was alleged that there had been no appropriate system controlling entry into the premises of a betting shop for which he had been the responsible authorised representative ( verantwortlicher Beauftragter ) when the competent authorities had inspected that betting shop on 24 April 2019. As the responsible authorised representative, he had been responsible for ensuring compliance with the Vienna Betting Act. The municipality issued him with a fine of 6,600 euros (EUR) plus costs of EUR   660, with five days and fourteen hours’ imprisonment in default of payment. Proceedings before the Vienna Regional Administrative Court 7 .     On 19 June 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Vienna Regional Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgericht Wien ) in which he contested, inter alia , the facts established by the municipality of Vienna in its penalty notice (see paragraph 6 above). He also requested that a public oral hearing be held in any event ( jedenfalls eine öffentliche mündliche Verhandlung ). 8 .     On 10 September 2020 the Regional Administrative Court summoned the applicant to a hearing that was scheduled to take place on 22   October 2020 via videolink. As regards the holding of the hearing, it referred to section   44(1) of the Administrative Court Procedure Act ( Verwaltungsgerichtsverfahrensgesetz , see paragraph 35 below). The court asked the applicant to provide his email address and contact its registry with a view to conducting a technical test prior to the hearing. It also asked him to download the Google Chrome app on a computer or smartphone and to inform it if he did not have technical equipment at his disposal suitable for audio and video transmission. The court informed the applicant that, under section   44(5) of the Administrative Court Procedure Act, he could waive his right to the holding of an oral hearing at any point up until the start of the hearing. It further pointed out that, under section   44(2) of the same Act (see paragraph   35 below), a failure to appear despite having been duly summoned would not prevent the hearing from being held or a judgment from being handed down. Lastly, the court noted that, as a precautionary measure with a view to combatting the spread of COVID-19, all persons wishing to enter the building of the Regional Administrative Court would have their body temperature read by means of a contactless infrared thermometer. Once inside the court building, a minimum distance of one metre between all persons would have to be kept. It was also mandatory to wear face masks covering mouth and nose. Furthermore, all persons wishing to access the part of the building where the courtrooms were located would have to undergo a security check. However, as the hearing would be held via videolink, no entry would be granted to the courtroom. 9 .     Furthermore, according to the submissions by the parties (see also paragraphs   70-71 below), information about upcoming hearings before the Regional Administrative Court scheduled in a given week were displayed on the court’s official bulletin board by indicating the respective courtroom. The bulletin board itself was located inside the court building in its entrance area. The precautionary measures against COVID-19 (see paragraph 8 above) were thus applicable to persons wishing to consult the court’s bulletin board. The general security check, on the other hand, was only applicable to persons wishing to access the part of the court building where the courtrooms were located (ibid.). Oral hearing via videolink 10 .     On 22 October 2020 the oral hearing took place as announced, via videolink. The judge was present in a courtroom on the premises of the court, from where she connected to the video-conference, while the clerk of the proceedings ( Schriftführerin ) and the parties to the proceedings (the applicant and his lawyer, the municipality represented by two legal representatives), as well as two witnesses, all joined separately via a live audio and videolink. 11 .     After the formal opening of the online hearing, the applicant’s lawyer indicated that he was having problems with the connection. He complained in particular that he could hear a loud background noise ( lautes Rauschen ) and that he could barely or only partially follow the hearing. The clerk and one of the two representatives of the municipality logged out of the video ‑ conference and back in again. According to the record of the hearing ( Verhandlungsprotokoll ) (which did not need to be signed by the parties to the proceedings, but only by the person presiding over the hearing held via videolink – see section 3(5) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act in paragraph 32 below), the participants were subsequently able to follow the proceedings. However, in subsequent appeals to higher domestic courts (see paragraphs 25 and 27 below), the applicant alleged that there had been constant sound problems ( ständige Tonprobleme ) during the video ‑ conference. 12.     During the hearing the judge opened the proceedings for the taking of evidence ( Beweisverfahren ). 13 .     The applicant’s lawyer objected to the hearing being held via videolink, alleging that that was a breach of the principles of a public hearing and equality of arms guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention, among other things. He insisted that the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings required that oral hearings should only take place via communications technology if no other possibilities existed that would avoid or minimise interferences with fundamental rights. He also contended that the public could not participate in any way in the hearing because it was being held via videolink. 14 .     One of the two legal representatives of the opposing party (the municipality of Vienna) explicitly concurred with the concerns expressed by the applicant’s lawyer regarding the alleged breach of the principles of immediacy and equality of arms (see paragraph 13 above). 15.     The presiding judge continued the hearing via videolink without addressing the objections raised by the applicant’s lawyer and supported by one of the municipality’s legal representatives (see paragraphs 13-14 above). 16 .     According to the record of the hearing, more background noise ( Hintergrundgeräusch ) was audible during the questioning of one of the two witnesses (one of the officials who had inspected the betting shop in question in April 2019 and who appeared as a witness for the prosecution, see paragraph   6 above). The presiding judge asked one of the two representatives of the municipality to log out of the video-conference and back in again. 17.     At the end of the hearing the applicant’s lawyer again referred to his earlier submissions and added his closing arguments ( Schlussausführungen ). 18 .     The record of the hearing indicated that the reading out of the record of the hearing had been dispensed with ( auf die Verlesung der Verhandlungsschrift wird verzichtet ), that the parties had read along on the screen and that an uncorrected record of the hearing would be sent to them. 19.     The judge then closed the hearing, without having addressed the objections to the hearing being held via videolink raised by the applicant’s lawyer and supported by one of the municipality’s legal representatives (see paragraphs   13-14 above). 20 .     During the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted photocopies of two photographs showing an A4 sheet of paper with a transparent cover (hereinafter “the notice”) stating “Public Participation” ( Teilnahme der Öffentlichkeit ) and displaying two further lines of text which seemingly contained the information necessary to access the video ‑ conference. In one photograph the notice was hanging freely from a doorknob while in the other it was partially jammed in the doorframe of the hearing room. The Government submitted that the photographs had been taken on 22 October 2020 (the day of the hearing via videolink) at 12.12   p.m. and 12.13 p.m., respectively, which is to say immediately after the end of the hearing which, according to the record of the hearing, had ended at 12.08   p.m. Decision of the Regional Administrative Court 21 .     On 15 March 2021 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal and upheld the penalty notice, including the fine of EUR 6,600, with five days and fourteen hours’ imprisonment in default of payment. It further ordered him to pay costs of EUR   1,320 in respect of the proceedings before it. 22.     As regards the objection raised by the applicant in relation to the hearing being held via videolink, the Regional Administrative Court referred to section 3(2) and (3) in conjunction with section 6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act ( Verwaltungsrechtliches COVID ‑ 19-Begleitgesetz , see paragraphs   32 and   33 below), under which it was possible to hold hearings in the form of video ‑ conferences. The court held that the concerns regarding a potential violation of Article 6 of the Convention were unfounded and referred, in that connection, to a number of judgments of the Court (namely, Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v.   Russia , no.   34653/04, §§ 27 and 32-33, 26 June 2012; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia   [GC], no.   21272/03, §§ 95 and 98, 2 November 2010; Gennadiy Medvedev v.   Russia , no. 34184/03, §§ 37-38, 24 April 2012; and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§   42-43, 16   February 2016). 23.     Concerning the substance of the case, the court noted that it had concerned a fine of EUR 6,600, with five days and fourteen hours’ imprisonment in default of payment, and that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer and had furthermore participated himself in the oral hearing via videolink. There had been no breach of the principle of equality of arms as all the participants had attended the oral hearing via videolink. When the applicant’s lawyer had complained of problems with the sound quality, the presiding judge had ordered that measures be taken, namely that certain participants log out and back in again, until the sound quality had been such that all participants had been able to hear in an unimpeded manner. 24.     In addition, there had been a notice on the door of the hearing room (from which the presiding judge had participated in the online hearing via videolink) on which the access information for the video-conference had been displayed, in case any members of the public had wished to participate in the oral hearing. Accessing the oral hearing via videolink could have been easily accomplished by entering that access information into a smartphone. In the event, however, no members of the public had participated in the oral hearing. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court 25 .     On 15 April 2021 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ). He submitted, inter alia , that the rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention had to be ensured irrespective of sections 3 and 6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act, and that these rights were not restricted by those provisions. He argued that the right to a hearing included the physical presence of the accused in the hearing room. The Regional Administrative Court had erroneously applied the Court’s case-law, according to which the physical presence of the accused could be dispensed with under certain circumstances, as that related to appeal proceedings but not to first-instance proceedings, as in his case (in that connection he referred to the case of Sinichkin v. Russia , no. 20508/03, §   31, 8   April 2010). The applicant further alleged that there had been constant sound problems during the video ‑ conference (see paragraph 10 above) and that the restriction of his rights had not pursued a legitimate aim, nor had it been justified in any other form. He also disputed that the information to access the video-conference had been displayed on the door of the hearing room and contended that the public had therefore been unable to participate in the hearing. 26 .     On 22 June 2021 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success. In the context of (the original version of) sections 3 and 6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act, it referred to one of its previous decisions of 8   October 2020 (E   1873/2020, see paragraph   36 below) concerning a civil administrative case in which it had held that the holding of oral hearings using suitable communication technologies, as a protective measure against COVID-19, did not violate the right to an oral hearing guaranteed under Article   6 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court concluded that the legal issues at stake in the case did not require specific constitutional consideration and referred the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ). Proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court 27 .     In his extraordinary appeal ( auβerordentliche Revision ) to the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 August 2021, the applicant, inter alia , reiterated his arguments raised before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph   25 above). 28 .     On 18 January 2022 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s extraordinary appeal. It noted, inter alia , that in view of the restrictions on freedom of movement and interpersonal contact introduced owing to COVID-19, the legislature had extended the use of technical equipment for audio and video transmission in accordance with section   3(2) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act on 13 May 2020 to “oral hearings, questionings, inspections and the like”, “oral hearings that would otherwise have to be held on site” and the taking of “evidence” for a limited period of time, namely until 31 December 2020 (see paragraph   31 below). The video-conference had been held on 22 October 2020, and thus within the time-limit. The legislature had clearly provided for the possibility of holding oral hearings in the (physical) absence of all participants using suitable technical equipment for audio and video transmission, and the Regional Administrative Court had made use of that possibility. The purpose alone, namely the restriction of interpersonal contact owing to the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic, meant that holding the oral hearing by videolink could be considered justifiable, especially since all parties to the proceedings in question had taken part. The Regional Administrative Court had made it possible for the public to follow the hearing by displaying the information to access the video-conference on the door of the hearing room. The existence of clear and relevant regulations meant that holding the hearing by videolink had not been unreasonable (in that connection, the court referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 8   October 2020 (E 1873/2020, see paragraph   36 below) and to the Court’s judgment in the case of Kozlitin v.   Russia , no. 17092/04, § 73, 14   November 2013). Nor had there been any deviation from the previous case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court regarding oral hearings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE The COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act 29 .     On 20 March 2020 Parliament enacted, inter alia , the Federal Act on Accompanying measures relating to COVID-19 in administrative proceedings, in proceedings in the administrative courts as well as in proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court and in the Constitutional Court ( Bundesgesetz betreffend Begleitmaßnahmen zu COVID-19 im Verwaltungsverfahren, im Verfahren der Verwaltungsgerichte sowie im Verfahren des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes und des Verfassungsgerichtshofes ), abbreviated to the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act ( Verwaltungsrechtliches COVID-19-Begleitgesetz ). That Act entered into legal force on 22 March 2020 and was subsequently amended three times in 2020. Originally its legal force was to last until 31 December 2020, but the Act’s validity was repeatedly extended until 30 June 2023, when it expired. 30 .     Section   3 of that Act, as in force from 22 March until 14 May 2020, provided ( mutatis mutandis ) that, if COVID-19-related restrictions on freedom of movement or on interpersonal contacts were in force, oral hearings, questioning, inspections and the like were to be conducted in proceedings before administrative courts only if absolutely necessary to uphold the due administration of justice in administrative matters. Where questioning, inspections or an oral hearing were deemed absolutely necessary, the possibility of conducting them in the (physical) absence of all participants by using suitable communication technology was provided for. 31 .     Section   3(1) of the Act, as in force from 15 May until 2 July 2020, provided that it was permitted to conduct oral hearings, questioning, inspections, the taking of evidence and the like only if it was ensured at the given location that a minimum distance of one metre could be kept between those present and that all those present wore an adequate mechanical protective mechanism (mask) covering the mouth and nose. Under section   3(2), public authorities were allowed to use suitable technical equipment for audio and video transmission to conduct oral hearings, questioning, inspections and the like. 32 .     Section   3 of the Act, as in force from 3 July until 31 December 2020, regulated, inter alia , the holding of oral hearings, questioning, inspections, the taking of evidence and the like, and read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “(1) For the duration of the validity of the COVID-19 Restrictions Relaxation Regulation ( COVID-19 Lockerungsverordnung ) ... or any other regulation issued on the basis of section   2(1) of the COVID-19 Measures Act ( COVID-19 Maβnahmengesetz ) ..., an administrative body conducting an oral hearing ..., questioning ..., an inspection or [which is] taking evidence or the like must ensure that the participants in the official act, with the exception of the official bodies, comply with the provisions of the regulation applicable to entering the setting of the official act; section 34(2), (4) and   (5) [of the General Administrative Procedure Act ( Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz )] shall apply. (2) The authority may: 1. conduct oral hearings, questioning, inspections and the like using suitable technical equipment for audio and video transmission; 2. hold oral hearings, which would otherwise have to be held on the spot, at the seat of the authority or at the place which appears most appropriate in view of the circumstances, using suitable technical equipment for audio and video transmission, in which case on-site inspections and the taking of evidence must take place before the hearing; or 3. take evidence using suitable technical equipment for audio and video transmission. (3) The parties and other participants, the necessary witnesses and experts, the interpreters and other persons [who should be] present at the official proceedings shall be given the opportunity to participate in the official proceedings in question using technical equipment for audio and video transmission. The authority shall request the parties and other participants to state whether they have access to such technical equipment for audio and video transmission; should that not the case, the official proceedings may also be conducted in their absence. In that case, the authority must give the parties and other involved participants who are unable to participate in the official act for that reason the opportunity to exercise their rights or to participate in the determination of the facts in some other suitable manner. ... (5) If an official act is carried out using technical equipment for audio and video transmission, a record need not be signed by any person other than the person who presided over the official act. If the record is created electronically, the signature of the person who presided over the official act may be replaced by a procedure to prove the identity ... of the person who presided over the official act and of the authenticity ... of the minutes ...” 33 .     Section   6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act, a provision with constitutional status ( Verfassungsbestimmung ), concerned proceedings before the administrative courts and proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court as well as the Constitutional Court. It read, in so far as relevant, as follows at the material time: “(1) ... Sections   1 to 5 shall apply mutatis mutandis ( sinngemäβ ) to proceedings in the administrative courts if, at the least, the [General Administrative Procedure Act] is also applicable to those proceedings ...” 34 .     As submitted by the parties, according to the relevant explanatory memorandum attached to draft bill ( Initiativantrag , 437/A BlgNR27. GP   4), section   3(2) of the Act (see paragraphs 31-32 above) was meant to enable hearings (and other official acts) to be held via videolink to the greatest extent possible, in order to permit the public to continue interacting with public authorities despite the restrictions on freedom of movement and on interpersonal contacts imposed to prevent and combat COVID-19. The public authorities were entitled to discretion, as in other investigative proceedings, in their use of videolinks, such that they were only used in a way that was not in conflict with, inter alia , Article 6 of the Convention, or any other constitutional law provisions. The Administrative Court Procedure Act 35 .     Section   44 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act ( Verwaltungsgerichtsverfahrensgesetz ) regulated the holding of hearings ( Verhandlung ) in administrative matters and read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “(1) The administrative court shall hold a public oral hearing [ öffentliche mündliche Verhandlung ]. (2) The hearing shall not be held if the party’s application or the appeal is to be rejected or if it is already clear on the basis of the file that the decision contested in the appeal is to be set aside. (3) The administrative court may dispense with a hearing if 1. the appeal only alleges an incorrect legal assessment; 2. the appeal is only directed against the amount of the penalty; 3. the contested decision imposed a fine of less than 500 euros; or 4. the appeal is directed against a procedural decision and no party has requested that a hearing be held. The appellant must request that a hearing be held in the appeal ... An application to hold a hearing can only be withdrawn with the consent of the other parties. (4) ... the administrative court may refrain from holding a hearing, regardless of whether or not a party has applied for one, if it has to take a decision [in a given case], [and] the files indicate that the oral discussion cannot be expected to clarify the case further and Article   6 §   1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ... does not preclude the cancellation of the hearing. (5) The administrative court may refrain from holding ... a hearing if the parties expressly waive this. Such a waiver can be declared up to the start of the ... hearing ...” Case-law of the Constitutional Court 36 .     In its decision of 8 October 2020 (E   1873/2020) the Constitutional Court reiterated its previous case-law to the effect that, in principle, the failure to hold an oral hearing as required constituted a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to one under Article 6 of the Convention. However, the right of a party to an oral hearing was not absolute: according to the case-law of the Court and – following it – of the Constitutional Court, an oral hearing could be omitted if the factual issue was undisputed and only a legal issue was to be decided, or if the case was not particularly complex. 37.     In the relevant case, which concerned a civil administrative matter, one of the parties to the proceedings had requested, in April 2019, that an oral hearing be held. The competent regional administrative court, as a court of first instance, had indeed scheduled such a hearing for 16 March 2020, which had however been cancelled to prevent the spread of COVID-19, on the basis of section 3 in conjunction with section 6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act as in force at the material time (see paragraphs   30 and   33 above). That court had instead given its decision on 4 April 2020 without holding a hearing. The Constitutional Court observed that the legal conditions for an oral hearing to be held, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, had been fulfilled, and that if the holding of such an oral hearing had been absolutely necessary, it could have been conducted in the (physical) absence of all participants by using suitable communication technologies. The obligation to hold an oral hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention had not been restricted by section 3 in conjunction with section   6(1) of the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act. There had therefore been a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to hold an oral hearing in that case. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 38.     The applicant complained that he had not been permitted to participate in person (rather than virtually) in the hearing held before the Regional Administrative Court, even though that court had been sitting as first-instance court. Furthermore, he complained that the public had been excluded from the hearing and challenged whether the access information had indeed been displayed on the door of the hearing room, and claimed that the costly technical requirements for participation had hindered (part of) the public from doing so. Lastly, the applicant alleged that there had been an infringement of his right to be effectively defended by a lawyer, submitting that he and his lawyer had had to attend the hearing using two different videolinks and had been physically located in different rooms, making any confidential conversation between them impossible. He relied on Article   6 §§ 1 and   3   (c) of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society ... or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. ... 3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (c)     to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing ...” 39.     As regards the preliminary question of the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to the case at issue, the Court notes that it is common ground between the parties that the proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court concerned the determination of a “criminal charge” against the applicant in the meaning of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to disagree. Indeed, according to its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies, under its criminal head, to administrative offences like the one at issue in the present case and the corresponding administrative criminal proceedings under Austrian law (see   Gradinger v.   Austria , 23   October 1995, § 36, Series   A no.   328-C, and   Baischer v.   Austria , no.   32381/96 , § 22, 20 December 2001; compare also with Kindlhofer v.   Austria , no. 20962/15, § 30, 26   October 2021, albeit in the context of Article   2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention). Moreover, the domestic courts did not dispute the applicability of Article   6 to the proceedings at issue (see paragraphs   21, 26 and 28 above). The Court concludes that Article 6, under its criminal head, is applicable to the present case. 40.     The Court further notes that the applicant raised three different complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. It will therefore examine them separately, in the following order: (A) the right to an oral hearing and (physical) presence at the hearing; (B) the right to a public hearing; and (C) the right to effective legal assistance. The right to an oral hearing and presence at the hearing Admissibility 41.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits (a)    The parties’ submissions (i)       The applicant 42 .     The applicant argued that the hearing before the Regional Administrative Court held via videolink could not be equated with an oral and public hearing. He insisted that the Court’s case-law on the right to an oral hearing and to presence at that hearing meant presence in person, that is to say, physical presence (see paragraph 25 above). The domestic courts had denied him that right by referring to the Court’s case-law relating to the possibility of proceedings being held by videolink in the case of appeal courts when the accused had already had an oral hearing at the first instance in which he or she had participated in person. The circumstances of the case at hand had, however, differed from such situations as there had been no hearing at which the applicant could participate in person, that is, by way of his physical presence. Moreover, the applicant insisted that, to a large extent, questions of fact had been at issue, not just questions of law. The penalty that had been imposed on him was itself to be considered serious and potentially detrimental to his professional advancement. Furthermore, the restriction on his right to have, and be present at, an oral hearing had had no legitimate purpose and was not otherwise justified. 43.     Moreover, the applicant maintained that there had been constant sound problems during the video-conference. The questioning of the only witness for the prosecution had had to be interrupted because of the connection problems. The applicant insisted that only the two most severe episodes of sound problems had been noted in the record of the hearing which, as he pointed out, had not been signed by him and his lawyer. 44.     The applicant also submitted that the restriction of his fair-trial rights could not be justified in the public interest. Under the Court’s case-law, only “exceptional circumstances” could have justified such a restriction (he referred to the case of Fröbrich v. Germany , no. 23621/11, §§   35-36, 16   March 2017), and protection against infection during a pandemic could not generally be recognised as such an exception. It could have been possible to hold the hearing in one of the large hearing rooms, some of which were new and equipped with safety partitions. The (abstract) risk of an infection could have been reduced to a minimum. There had also not been any time pressure to prosecute in his case, as there had been a long time left until the applicable limitation period ran out. (ii)     The Government 45 .     The Government submitted that the holding of an oral hearing via videolink had had a clear legal basis in domestic law, namely the COVID-19 Administrative Proceedings Ancillary Act. It had also pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of combating the spread of COVID-19 to protect the health of the general public by reducing the number of infections, to prevent the breakdown of public healthcare owing to hospitals experiencing capacity overloads, to keep the administrative courts operational as they were part of Austria’s critical infrastructure and to prevent delays in administrative criminal proceedings. In the view of the Government, allowing the holding of oral hearings via videolink was among the first measures taken by Austria in this regard. 46 .     The Government argued that the applicant’s fair-trial rights had been respected during the hearing. Both he and his lawyer had been able to participate in it in full. By September and October 2020 the use of video ‑ conferencing for holding oral hearings had become common practice. The applicant, who had been represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, had not objected to the use of a videolink until the hearing had begun. He and his lawyer had been free to inform the court that they lacked the technical equipment to participate in the video-conference. They had been further free to attend the hearing by connecting from one and the same location, via the same or two different devices, and a private conversation between them could have been requested, and arranged, at any time during the hearing. The problem with disruptive background noise, which had occurred twice during the video-conference, had been immediately resolved, and the applicant’s lawyer had been able to question the two witnesses without any restrictions. 47 .     The Regional Administrative Court had no less restrictive measure than a video-conference at its disposal. At the time of the summons in September   2020, that court had only a very limited number of courtrooms available. Those had had to be equipped with the structural safety features prescribed by law (be large enough to permit sufficient physical distancing, acrylic glass panels and so on) – which took time to complete. The judge had thus not been able to predict, at the time of the summons, whether enough courtrooms complying with the mandatory health provisions would be available by the time of the hearing. In the interest of the proper administration of criminal justice it had been important to avoid delays in these and other proceedings, which could have led to a predictable backlog of cases and, potentially, impunity owing to the expiry of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, all the participants in the proceedings had taken part by videolink in the same way. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       General principles established in the Court’s case-law 48.     An oral, and public, hearing constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 §   1. This principle is particularly important in the criminal context, where generally there must be at first instance a tribunal which fully meets the requirements of Article 6 (see Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, §   79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ I), and where an applicant has an entitlement to have his case “heard”, with the opportunity, inter alia, to give evidence in his own defence, hear the evidence against him, and examine and cross-examine the witnesses (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §   40, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV). 49.     Furthermore, although this is not expressly mentioned in paragraph   1 of Article 6, the object and purpose of the Article taken as a whole show that a person “charged with a criminal offence” is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 guarantee to “everyone charged with a criminal offence” the right “to defend himself in person”, “to examine or have examined witnesses” and “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”, and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present (see, among many others, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no.   56581/00, §   81, ECHR 2006 ‑ II; see also Colozza v. Italy , 12   February 1985, §   27, Series   A no. 89, and Belziuk v. Poland , 25   March 1998, §   37, Reports 1998 ‑ II). 50.     The Convention leaves the Contracting States wide discretion as regards the choice of the means put in place to ensure that their legal systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article 6. The Court’s task is to determine whether the result called for by the Convention has been achieved. In particular, the procedural means offered by domestic law and practice must be shown to be effective where a person charged with a criminal offence has neither waived his right to appear and to defend himself nor sought to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland , no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI, and Somogyi v. Italy , no. 67972/01, § 67, ECHR 2004-IV). 51.     The Court has further held that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom – either during the original proceedings or at a retrial – ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article   6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria , no. 9808/02, §   56, 24   March 2005). 52.     While the defendant’s participation in the proceedings by video ‑ conference is not as such contrary to the Convention, it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that recourse to this measure in any given case serves a legitimate aim and that the arrangements for the giving of evidence are compatible with the requirements of respect for due process