CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 avril 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } Resolution ResDH(2005)22 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 November 2003 (final on 6 February 2004) in the case of Krone Verlag GmbH & CoKG No. 2 against Austria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 April 2005 at the 922nd 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 &   CoKG No. 2 delivered on 6 November 2003 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. 40284/98) against Austria, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 February 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Krone Verlag GmbH & CoKG, a limited partnership registered under Austrian law, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that the applicant company, a newspaper, had suffered a disproportionate interference in its freedom of expression on account of the imposition in 1998 of a coercive indemnity, under Section 20, paragraph 1, of the Media Act, for not having fully respected the obligation duly to inform the public of compensation claims instituted against it by publishing a short notice having the same “publishing value” as the articles at the origin of the compensation procedure;   Whereas in its judgment of 6 November 2003 the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in that the sanction had been imposed by the Vienna Court of Appeal for the period encompassing the appeal proceedings, during which it could not reasonably have been demanded of the applicant newspaper to publish a notice, as the first instance court decision was in its favour;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant company, within three months from the date upon which the judgment became final, 20   000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage; 9   209.31euros in respect of costs and expenses and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed the remainder of the applicant company'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 6 November 2003, 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken to erase the consequences of the violation found and to prevent new, similar violations in the future; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that on 15 March 2004, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 6 November 2003,   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.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)22   Information provided by the Government of Austria during the examination of the case of Krone Verlag GmbH & CoKG No. 2 by the Committee of Ministers   As regards individual measures , the applicant was granted adequate redress through compensation awarded by the European Court for pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of Article 10 found in this case. It may be recalled that, in any event, Section 363a of the Code of Criminal procedure allows the applicant to request the reopening of criminal proceedings found to violate the Convention.   As regards general measures , the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that was published in the Newsletter OIM 2003/6 of the Österreischiches Institut für Menschenrechte , http//www.sbg.ac.at/oim . As for all other judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning questions of criminal law, the judgment was automatically transmitted to the presidents of all higher courts in order to bring it to the attention of all judicial authorities in their area of competence. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the Internet database of the Austrian Federal Chancellery.   In view of the direct effect given to the Convention and the European Court's case-law by all supreme judicial authorities in Austria (see Resolution DH(93)60 in the case of Oberschlick No. 1 and Resolution ResDH(2002)99 in the case of Ahmed), the government believes that the domestic courts will not fail to adapt their practice to the Convention's requirements as set out in the present judgment, thus preventing new violations similar to that found in this case.   The Government therefore considers that Austria has satisfied its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to erase the consequences of the violation found in the present case and to prevent new, similar violations in the future.