In the case of Bechter v. Austria (1),
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,
constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 64/1996/683/873. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply
to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
________________
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 25 November 1996, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr C. Russo, Chairman,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr A. Spielmann,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the
Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 27 February 1996 by an
Austrian national, Mr Konrad Bechter, within the three-month period
laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention
(art. 32-1, art. 47);
Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a
complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights
("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court
by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission
under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a,
art. 48-1-d);
Having regard to the Commission's report of 18 October 1995 on
the application (no. 19125/91) lodged with the Commission by Mr Bechter
on 19 November 1991;
Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had the
possibility to comment on the submissions ("croquis") filed with the
Innsbruck Court of Appeal by the prosecution, and alleged a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which "In the
determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is
entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...";
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that he sought a decision by the Court which would allow him to
apply for the reopening of his case on the ground that his defence
rights had been violated, a similar possibility not being envisaged in
relation to decisions of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Finds that
(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention, as the
Court has already established case-law on the right of
the defence under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(art. 6-1) to respond to the "croquis"; and
(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant
consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding
that there has been a breach of the Convention, the
Committee of Ministers can award the applicant
just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by
the Commission;
2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be
considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
15 January 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Carlo RUSSO
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy