CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 août 1993

.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 } .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. August 1993 Sekanina v. Austria - 13126/87 Judgment 25.8.1993 Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Court decisions whereby applicant, having been acquitted, was refused compensation for detention on remand: 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 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Regional Court's decision refusing compensation had been given several months after the acquittal but was, having regard to Austrian legislation and practice, a consequence and, to some extent, the concomitant of that decision - moreover, decision had been taken by same court, albeit differently composed, and had been based on Assize Court's case file. Conclusion : Article 6 § 2 applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance Right of an accused to compensation for detention on remand imposed in conformity with requirements of Article 5: not guaranteed by Article 6 § 2. Decision refusing compensation might raise an issue under Article 6 §   2 if supporting reasoning amounted in substance to a determination of guilt without accused having previously been proved guilty according to law.   In certain earlier German cases, proceedings had been terminated before any final decision on the merits, whereas here the Assize Court had acquitted the applicant - despite that, the courts competent to award compensation had pointed out, pursuant to the law, that there were still suspicions concerning the applicant, and they had listed the evidence supporting them.   Voicing suspicions regarding an accused's innocence was conceivable in the absence of any decision on the merits of the accusation, but not after an acquittal that had become final. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: no causal connection with the breach that had been found - claim dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses in the national courts and in proceedings before Convention institutions: compensation awarded on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to the 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