CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207 May 2017 Haupt v. Austria (dec.) - 55537/10 Decision 2.5.2017 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Dismissal of compensation award following reopening of domestic proceedings as a result of the institution of Convention proceedings: inadmissible Facts – At the material time the applicant was Deputy Federal Chancellor and chairperson of the Austrian Freedom Party. After being compared to a “hippopotamus” in a television show he instituted criminal proceedings under the Media Act against the television company for proffering insults and was awarded compensation in a judgment that became final. The television company subsequently lodged an application with the European Court complaining of a breach of its rights under Article   10 of the Convention. Following the communication of that application to the Government, the Austrian Supreme Court granted a request by the Procurator General for an extraordinary re-opening of the domestic proceedings and remitted the case to the regional court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , of a breach of his right to private life under Article   8 of the Convention and of a breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 as a result of the dismissal of his compensation claim in the re-opened proceedings. Law – The regional court’s judgment had struck a fair balance between the competing interests – the right to private life and to freedom of expression – at stake. The applicant’s Article   8 complaint was therefore declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Article 1 of Protocol No.   1: The central question was whether the applicant had had an undisputed claim, constituting “possessions”, to the compensation he had been awarded by the regional criminal court. In finding that he had not, the Court noted that under Article 363a of the Austrian Code of Criminal Proceedings any person claiming a violation of his or her rights under the Convention could request the renewal of criminal proceedings and, under the established domestic case-law of the Supreme Court, the finding of a violation by the European Court was not a necessary precondition for such a renewal. The applicant should thus have been aware of the situation under Austrian law whereby the television company’s application to the European Court could set in motion proceedings by which the domestic compensation award would have to be reconsidered with regard to the company´s rights under the Convention. The compensation award was not merely accessory to the company’s criminal conviction, but constituted the sanction for the offence. It would therefore have been clear to the applicant that the setting aside of the judgment would automatically affect his compensation award. The applicant had, therefore, not shown that he had a claim that was sufficiently established to constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court went on to add that even if the dismissal of the compensation claim had constituted “possessions”, in the light of its findings under Article   8, there had been a legal basis and sufficient reasons for the reopening of the proceedings and there was no indication that the dismissal of the claim had been disproportionate. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes