CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 16 March 2000 Rushiti v. Austria - 28389/95 Judgment 21.3.2000 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Absence of public hearing: violation Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Refusal of compensation for detention on remand despite acquittal: violation Facts : The applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of attempted murder. He was subsequently acquitted by a jury by 7 votes to 1, the majority finding that there was insufficient evidence. The applicant brought proceedings for compensation in respect of his detention. His claim was rejected by the Regional Criminal Court, sitting in camera , on the ground that there had been reasonable suspicion which had not been dissipated. The Court of Appeal, after the Constitutional Court had upheld the constitutionality of the relevant provision, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It also sat in camera . Law : Article 6 § 1: The Court held in the Szücs and Werner judgments of 24 November 1997 that Article 6 applied to compensation proceedings and that the absence of a public hearing and public pronouncement violated Article 6 § 1. It saw no reason to reach a difference conclusion in this case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 2: Although there was no new assessment of guilt (unlike in the case of Sekanina, judgment of 25 August 1993), the Court was not convinced that the voicing of suspicion is acceptable if those suspicions have already been expressed in the reasons for the acquittal. Once an acquittal is final, even if on the benefit of the doubt, the voicing of suspicions, including those expressed in the reasons for the acquittal, is incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court found no causal link between the violations and the alleged pecuniary loss, and considered that the judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of costs.   © 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