CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 21 octobre 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }        In the case of Feingold v. Austria (1),         The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 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), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 110/1996/729/926.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and 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 the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________         Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 25 September 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,       Mr F. Matscher,       Mr C. Russo,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria dated 29 August 1996 lodged with the Court by a British national, Mr Neville Noah Feingold, on 2 September 1996;         Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 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 Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or by the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;         Having regard to the Commission's report of 11 April 1996 on the application (no. 20864/92) lodged with the Commission by Mr Feingold on 12 October 1992;         Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 29 May 1996, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;         Whereas the applicant complained (i) of the incorrect legal classification of the offence for which he was tried in the Austrian criminal courts and (ii) that he had not had a fair trial before those courts, particularly because the hearing in the Supreme Court was not public, he was not supplied with a copy of the principal public prosecutor's observations, was unable to have witnesses summoned and could not obtain the assistance of an interpreter, and alleged breaches of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention (right to non-discrimination), taken in conjunction with Articles 5 para. 1 (a) (art. 14+5-1-a) (lawfulness of detention) and 7 para. 1 (art. 14+7-1) (offences to be defined by law), and of Article 6 paras. 1 (art. 6-1) (right to a fair trial), 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him) and 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) (right to have the free assistance of an interpreter);         Whereas on 6 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible the complaint relating to the failure to communicate the principal public prosecutor's observations to the defence (Article 6 para. 1) (art. 6-1) and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible;         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 5 para. 1 (a) and 7 para. 1, (art. 14+5-1-a, art. 14+7-1) and of Article 6 paras. 1, 3 (d) and 3 (e) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d, art. 6-3-e) and to award him just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention;         Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.     Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the       Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an       application the case must be referred to it within a period of       three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's       report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to       the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a       violation of the Convention;   2.     Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,       since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee       of Ministers on 29 May 1996 and the application sent to the Court       on 29 August 1996, that is before expiry of the three-month       period, as evidenced by the postmark;   3.     Finds that         (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the            interpretation or application of the Convention, as the            Court has already established case-law on the principle of            "equality of arms" for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1            (art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards communication of            the principal public prosecutor's observations to the            defence, while consideration of the other complaints lies            outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has            declared them 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 can award the applicant just            satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the            Commission;   4.     Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be       considered by the Court.         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Ronald MACDONALD       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar