CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 7 octobre 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s128F7B00 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFF5CEE3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .sB0DDE566 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:282.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:22.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF16E9E88 { width:52.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }           Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE G.M. ET U.B. c. AUTRICHE   CASE OF G.M. ET U.B. v. AUSTRIA   (75/1997/859/1068-1070)           DECISION                   STRASBOURG     7 octobre/October 1997 In the case of G.M. and U.B. v. Austria [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B [2] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 September 1997, and composed of the following judges:   Mr   J. De Meyer , Chairman ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   N. Valticos , and also of Mr H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 10 July 1997 by an Austrian national, Mr G.M, and a German national, Mr U.B., within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 §   1 and Article 47 of the Convention; Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court; Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by   the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the State of which the second applicant is a national or by the Commission under Article 48 § 1 (a), (b) or (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission's report of 9 April 1997 on the applications (nos. 21089/92, 21443/93 and 22476/93) lodged with the Commission by the applicants on 9 October 1992, 26 February and 19   August 1993; Whereas the applicants complained (i) that they had not had access to a “tribunal” in administrative criminal proceedings before the Austrian Administrative Court and the Austrian Constitutional Court, and (ii) that they had been ordered to pay exorbitant fines, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right of access to a tribunal) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Whereas on 12 October 1994 the Commission declared the second complaint inadmissible and on 17 January 1996 it declared the first complaint admissible; Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that they sought a decision by the Court in particular on account of (i) the severity of the penalties imposed on them by judicial organs which did not have full jurisdiction, and (ii) the fact that Austria had not taken practical steps to set aside the decisions rendered in the case, despite the Court’s case-law on the question; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule   34   §§   1   (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.   Finds that (a) the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court already has consistent case-law to the effect that, in administrative criminal proceedings, the Austrian Administrative Court and the Austrian Constitutional Court do not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, while consideration of the complaint relating to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared it inadmissible; and (b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicants just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission; 2.   Decides , therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court. Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 7 October 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.         Signed : Jan De Meyer Chairman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar Notes by the Registrar 1.     The case is numbered 75/1997/859/1068-1070. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The third number indicates the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and the last two numbers indicate its position on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. 2.     Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.