CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG15
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 15 mai 1996
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-71
- Date
- 15 mai 1996
- Publication
- 15 mai 1996
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleApplication dismissed
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 M.S. 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 14/1996/633/817.   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 29 March and 23 April 1996, and composed of the following judges:         Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Chairman,       Mr F. Matscher,       Mr B. Walsh,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,         Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 6 February 1996 by an Austrian national, Mr M.S., within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;         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 either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;         Having regard to the Commission's report of 18 October 1995 on the application (no. 22048/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr M.S. on 31 January 1993;         Whereas the applicant, who is serving a prison sentence, complained of the refusal to allow him to correspond with another person, and alleged a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for one's private and family life and correspondence;         Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that his rights under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention had been violated and ordering the respondent State to pay him compensation by way of just satisfaction for the damage that such violation had allegedly caused him;         Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 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 has already established case-law on the requirements            of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention with regard to            prisoners' correspondence; 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 applicant 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 15 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Louis-Edmond PETTITI       Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD       Registrar  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG
- Formation
- 15
- Date
- 15 mai 1996
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-71
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral