CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 90 October 2006 Asci v. Austria (dec.) - 4483/02 Decision 19.10.2006 [Section III] Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Separate convictions for offences committed one after another, directed against different persons and differing in their degree of seriousness: inadmissible   The Federal Police Directorate convicted the applicant of aggressive behaviour towards a public officer as the applicant had shouted and tried to snatch his driving licence from police officer P. A regional court subsequently convicted the applicant of having attempted to resist the exercise of official authority and of having caused grievous bodily harm in that he had started a fight with police officer M. in which he had bruised the officer with his car keys and had kicked her legs. The Court reiterated that the aim of Article   4 of Protocol no. 7 is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings which have been concluded by a final decision. The mere fact that one act constitutes more than one offence is not contrary to Article   4 of Protocol no. 7. However, where different offences based on one act are prosecuted consecutively, one after the final decision of the other, the Court has to examine whether or not such offences have the same essential elements. In the present case the Federal Police Directorate convicted the applicant of aggressive behaviour towards police officer P. A regional court subsequently convicted the applicant of having attempted to resist the exercise of official authority and of having caused grievous bodily harm to police officer M. The applicant’s case therefore had to be distinguished from the cases of Gradinger v . Austria and Oliveira v . Switzerland , where the respective applicants had committed only one single act constituting different offences. In the present case the offences at issue were separate and subsequent in time. In any event, even accepting the applicant’s argument that he was punished twice on account of one single act (namely the events occurring during the dispute with the two police officers), the Court, applying the test developed in the case of Franz Fischer v .   Austria , considered that the two offences differed in their essential elements. They were committed one after another, directed against different persons and differed in their degree of seriousness. Even assuming that it would have been more consistent with the principles governing the proper administration of justice to have had the applicant tried by one single court in one set of proceedings, this was irrelevant as regards compliance with Article   4 of Protocol No. 7 since that provision does not preclude separate offences being tried by different courts. 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