CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 avril 1997

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. April 1997 Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria - 14696/89 and 14697/89 Judgment 23.4.1997 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Independence and impartiality of regional land reform boards: no violation Public hearing Decisions on land consolidation given without a public hearing: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Right to an "independent and impartial tribunal" Applicants did not identify any reason why Court should depart from its case-law. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). B.   Right to a "public hearing" 1.   Austria's reservation Although hearings before land reform boards were not open to public, Article 6 § 1 requirements complied with if shortcoming subsequently remedied by Administrative Court. Applicants' express requests for oral hearings before Administrative Court was refused pursuant to section   39   (2)   no.   6 of Administrative Court Act - section 39   (2)   no. 6 came into force in   1982, whereas Austria ratified Convention and made reservation in   1958   ‑ reservation does not apply. 2.   Compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Requests for oral hearings in Administrative Court refused on ground that they were not likely to clarify the case further   ‑ Government have not identified any exceptional circumstances for dispensing with oral hearing. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). C.   Other complaints Not pursued before Court and not necessary to examine of Court's own motion. II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage:   Court cannot speculate as to outcome of proceedings had public hearing taken place - claim rejected. B.   Non-pecuniary damage:   finding of violation provides sufficient just satisfaction. C.   Costs and expenses (in domestic and Strasbourg proceedings): awarded on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicants (unanimously).   © 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