CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 1996

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; 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 1996 Putz v. Austria - 18892/91 Judgment 22.2.1996 Article 6 Article 6-1 Criminal charge Imposition of pecuniary penalties for disrupting court proceedings: Article   6 not applicable [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 OF THE CONVENTION Three alternative criteria for determining whether the pecuniary penalties were "criminal" in nature within the meaning of Article 6: A.   Legal classification of offence in Austrian law Not established that in the national legal system the provisions covering disruptions of court proceedings belonged to criminal law. B.   Nature of the offence Situation similar to that in Ravnsborg case - rules enabling a court to sanction disorderly conduct a common feature of the legal systems of most Contracting States - such rules and sanctions derive from inherent power of a court to ensure proper and orderly conduct of its own proceedings - measures ordered by courts under such rules more akin to exercise of disciplinary powers than to imposition of punishment for commission of a criminal offence - the proscribed conduct in question therefore fell outside ambit of Article   6. C.   Nature and severity of the penalty A number of dissimilarities between the instant case and the Ravnsborg case in this respect, but that finding had to be qualified: in the instant case fines were not entered in the criminal record - they could be converted into prison sentences if unpaid and an appeal lay against such decisions - term of imprisonment into which a fine could be converted could not exceed ten days - the dissimilarities, which reflected the characteristics of the two national legal systems, were not decisive - in both cases the penalties were designed to enable the courts to ensure proper conduct of court proceedings - consequently, what was at stake for the applicant was not sufficiently important to warrant classifying the offences as "criminal". Conclusion : Article   6 not applicable and, accordingly, no violation of it (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Article 13 guarantees the availability of a remedy at national level to allege non-compliance with the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order - in the instant case there had been no "criminal charge" and Article 6 had not applied - applicant could not claim to be the victim of a breach of rights protected by that provision - his complaint therefore lay outside ambit of Article   13. Conclusion : Article 13 not applicable and, accordingly, no violation of it (seven votes to two).   © 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