CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Resolution ResDH(2003)156 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 26 February 2002 (final on 26 May 2002) in the case of Krone Verlag GmbH and Co.KG against Austria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 October 2003 at the 854th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Krone Verlag GmbH and Co.KG delivered on 26 February 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 34315/96) against Austria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 November 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Krone   Verlag GmbH and Co.KG, a limited partnership registered under Austrian law, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant company’s complaint that its right to freedom of expression had been violated on account of an injunction in 1996, under Article 78 of the Copyright Act, prohibiting it from publishing in its newspaper a picture of a politician, who was a member of the Austrian National Assembly and the European Parliament in association with allegations about his sources of income;   Whereas in its judgment of 26 February 2002 the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as the Austrian Courts’ decision did not sufficiently take into account the public-interest character of the publication at issue;   -   held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;   - held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 4 318,16 euros in respect of pecuniary damage; 6 411,53 euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 26 February 2002, having regard to Austria’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as the one found in this case (see Resolution ResDH(2001)1 in the case News Verlag GmbH and Co.KG against Austria), in particular through the direct effect given to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court’s case-law by Austrian Courts, and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been published in Zeitschrift für Medien und Recht 2002, 82, an Austrian legal journal, and sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 29 August 2002, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 February 2002, and having taken note of the fact that the applicant has waived its right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved;   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.