CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s79C2263B { height:21.4pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FE90776 { height:54.9pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA544500 { height:32.8pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC6655D7A { height:26.15pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2F406575 { height:39.95pt } .s5992263B { height:26.9pt } .s2649E78A { height:13.1pt } .sC27E3348 { height:7pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)113 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Schweighofer and others (see Appendix) against Austria   (Application No. 35673/97, judgment of 9 October 2001, final on 9 January 2002, see Appendix for the others)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Austria's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)113   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Schweighofer and others (see Appendix) against Austria     Application Case Length of proceedings Case pending Proceedings began 35673/97 Schweighofer and others, judgment of 09/10/2001, final on 09/01/2002 Several sets of proceedings, which lasted between 8 and 11 years, of which the preliminary investigations lasted between 1 and 4 years No Between 1985 and 1988 39205/98 Dirnberger , judgment of 05/02/2004, final on 05/05/2004 Almost 16 years, of which the pre-trial stage lasted more than 12 years No 1981 41444/98 Hennig , judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004 Almost 8 years, of which the preliminary investigation lasted approximately 5 years No 1989 50110/99 Maurer , judgment of 17/01/2002, final on 17/04/2002 Almost 5 years No 1994 42484/98 Royer , judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 12/09/2003 17 years, during which period the case was examined twice No 1984 70883/01 Hannak , judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005 15 years and 9 months No 1984     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and Application No Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on Schweighofer and others 35673/97 235   001 ATS 190   600 ATS   425   601 ATS 28/02/2002 Dirnberger 39205/98 10   000 € 2   000 € 12   000€ 07/06/2004 Hennig 41444/98 4   000 € 3   000 € 7   000 € 21/07/2006 Maurer 50110/99 3   633.72 € 2   180.23 € 5   813.95 € 17/06/2002 Royer 42484/98 12 000 € 2   000 € 14   000 € 03/11/2003 Hannak 70883/01 9   000 € 2 000 € 11 000 € 18/04/2005     b) Individual measures   None: the proceedings are closed.   II.   General measures   1) Measures taken to prevent the excessive length of criminal proceedings : In addition to providing information on the publication and dissemination of the judgments (see below), the Austrian authorities have indicated that it is possible under Section 91 of the Courts Act to apply for acceleration of pending criminal proceedings and that the European Court has considered this possibility to be an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35, paragraph 1 of the Convention with certain exceptions. For example, the European Court noted that the procedure provided in Section 91 of the Courts Act is not applicable to delays during the pre-trial phase attributable to the public prosecutor or to administrative authorities, or to delays caused by the Supreme Court.   However, the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which was published in the Official Journal No. 19/2004 and is due to enter into force on 1 January 2008, guarantees the principle that proceedings should be conducted rapidly and prohibits unnecessary delays at all stages of criminal trials. The new law also provides that an accused may request termination of the trial if this principle is infringed.   The Austrian authorities have also made reference to Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges criminal courts to report any delay or negligence of an authority which the court has requested to carry out a specific action to the respective superior authority or to the next instance court. This possibility also covers cases where the office of the public prosecutor does not fulfil a specific task.   Furthermore, public prosecutors are subject to dual supervision: first, under section 36 of the Law on public prosecutors ( Staatsanwaltschaftsgesetz ), the higher prosecution authorities ( Oberstaatsanwaltschaften ) have a duty of regular control. Secondly, under section 45 of the Law on civil servants ( Beamten - Dienstrechtsgesetz 1979), every direct superior has to supervise staff to promote efficiency in line with current laws.     2) Redress for damage caused: The Austrian authorities have drawn attention to the provision of the Criminal Code requiring excessive length of criminal proceedings to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance when sentencing.     3) Publication and dissemination: All judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning violations due to the length of criminal proceedings are automatically transmitted to the president of the Higher Regional Court ( Oberlandesgericht ) of the jurisdiction were the violation occurred, to inform all subordinate judicial authorities as appropriate. Furthermore, the judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice (RIS). Judgments of the European Court concerning Austria are habitually published in a summary version via www.menschenrechte.ac.at together with a link to the Court's judgments in English.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies