CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 février 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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9812EB { width:22.1pt; 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. February 1997 Mauer v. Austria - 16566/90 and 16898/90 Judgment 18.2.1997 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Fair hearing Administrative criminal proceedings for traffic offences: 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.   SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT Third set of proceedings referred to by applicant not encompassed by either of the Commission's decisions on admissibility. Conclusion :   no jurisdiction to consider applicant's complaints in so far as they relate to these proceedings (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1, 3 (C) AND (D) OF THE CONVENTION Substantive issues to be decided the same way as in recent similar cases against the same respondent State. Conclusion :   violation of Article 6 § 1 - not necessary to rule on the allegations of violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) respectively (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage 1.       Non-pecuniary damage:   present judgment in itself sufficient reparation. 2.       Pecuniary damage: applicant has neither shown the existence and extent of damage alleged, nor convinced the Court that there is any causal link between it and the violation found. B.   Costs and expenses Reimbursement in part. Conclusion :   respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicant (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