CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 novembre 1991

.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 }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brandstetter case delivered on 28 August 1991 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in three applications against Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 September 1984, 13 March 1987 and 21 October 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Karl Brandstetter, an Austrian national, who complained inter alia that the public prosecutor's submissions filed before the appellate court in defamation proceedings against him were not communicated to him;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 July 1990 and by the Government of Austria on 1 October 1990;        Whereas in its judgment of 28 August 1991 the Court:   -     held unanimously that, in the proceedings concerning the quality of the wine, there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 3.d (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d);   -     held unanimously that, in the same proceedings, there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);   -     rejected unanimously the preliminary objection which the government raised as regards expert evidence in the proceedings concerning the charge of tampering with evidence;   -     held unanimously that, in those proceedings, there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 3.d (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d);   -     held unanimously that, as regards those proceedings, it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2);   -     held unanimously that, in the defamation proceedings, there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);   -     held by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there was a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) on appeal;   -     held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay to the applicant, for costs and expenses, 60 000 Austrian schillings;   -     dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Austria to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 28 August 1991, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of Austria paid to the applicant on 9 October 1991 the sum provided for in the judgment,        Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.