The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter
referred to as "the Convention");
Having regard to the Report drawn up by the European Commission
of Human Rights relating to all the fourteen above-mentioned
Applications, Glaser and others, lodged against Austria;
Whereas the Commission transmitted the said Report to the Committee of
Ministers on 10th January 1964, and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention
has elapsed without these cases having been brought before the Court
in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas, in their respective Applications, all the Applicants complain
of several violations of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention alleged
to have taken place during judicial proceedings instituted against
each of them separately in Austria, as a result of which they were
convicted of certain criminal offences;
Whereas the Commission retained as admissible the following
issues:
1. as regards the Application of Hans Glaser (No. 834/60)
the compatibility of former Section 294, paragraph 3, of the Austrian
Code of Criminal Procedure and of the proceedings before the Court of
Appeal of Vienna in this case, including the lack of legal assistance,
with the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) and
paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) (art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c), of the
Convention;
2. as regards the Application of Friedrich Steinko (No. 964/60)
the entire Application in which the Applicant alleged violations of
Article 6 (art. 6) in that the decision of the Court of Appeal was
given after a hearing in closed session at which neither he nor his
lawyer was present;
3. as regards the Application of Karl Steinhauser (No. 1180/61)
the compatibility of the proceedings in the case before the Regional
Court of Wiener Neustadt with Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;
4. as regards the Application of Johann Maurer (No. 1207/61)
the compatibility of the proceedings in the case before the Court of
Appeal of Vienna with the provisions of Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention;
5. as regards the Application of Otto Pietsch (No. 1308/61)
that part of the Application relating to an alleged violation of
Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c), of the
Convention;
6. as regards the Application of Ekkehard Eichberger (No. 1526/62)
the entire Application in which it was alleged that in his case the
requirements of Article 6 (art. 6) were not complied with before the
Court of Appeal of Linz which decided his appeal in the absence of the
Applicant and his lawyer after hearing the Senior Public Prosecutor;
7. as regards the Application of Hans Nemec (No. 1543/62)
the entire Application in which it was alleged that the proceedings in
this case before the Court of Appeal of Vienna were incompatible with
the provisions of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c) (art. 6-1,
art. 6-3-c), of the Convention;
8. as regards the Application of Kurt Mölzer (No. 1549/62)
that part of the Application in which it was alleged that the hearing
of the Applicant's appeal before the Court of Appeal of Vienna did not
comply with the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention,
as it did not constitute a "fair hearing" and was conducted in
disregard of the rights of the defence;
9. as regards the Application of Ludwig, Friedrich and Adolf Lettl
(No. 1567/62)
that part of the Application in which it was alleged that the
proceedings in the case before the Court of Appeal of Vienna,
including the lack of legal assistance, constituted a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) and paragraph 3, sub-paragraphs (b)
and (c) (art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c), of the Convention;
10. as regards the Application of Walter Vesezcky (No. 1631/62)
the entire Application in which it was alleged that the hearing of
cross-appeals by the Applicant and the Public Prosecutor before the
Court of Appeal of Vienna, held in closed session in the presence only
of the Senior Public Prosecutor, constituted a violation of Article 6
(art. 6) of the Convention;
11. as regards the Application of Anton Cerny (No. 1632/62)
the allegation that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of
Vienna in this case constituted a violation of Article 6 (art. 6) of
the Convention, no decision having been taken, however, on the other
allegation that Article 5, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) (art. 5-1-a),
had also been violated;
12. as regards the Application of Mathias Schleritzko (No. 1634/62)
the entire Application in which it was alleged that the proceedings in
the case before the Court of Appeal of Vienna constituted a violation
of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) and paragraph 3,
sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) (art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c), of the
Convention;
13. as regards the Application of Walter Schostal (No. 1640/62)
that part of the Application in which it was alleged that the
proceedings on the Applicant's appeal before the Court of Appeal of
Linz, at which the Public Prosecutor was heard and the Applicant
was not present, constituted a violation of Article 6 (art. 6) of the
Convention;
14. as regards the Application of Karl Albrecht (No. 1735/62)
that part of the Application in which it was alleged that the
proceedings in this case before the Court of Appeal of Vienna at which
the Public Prosecutor was heard and not the Applicant or his lawyer,
constituted a violation of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;
Whereas the Commission has joined these fourteen Applications in
accordance with Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure;
Whereas the Commission, in its decision on the admissibility of
each case, concluded that these Applications were in the same category
of cases as those of Pataki and Dunshirn against Austria;
Whereas with regard to these cases the Commission had already
adopted its Report on 28th March 1963, and had stated therein its
opinion that the proceedings conducted in those cases were not in
conformity with the Convention;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers in its Resolution (63) DH 2 of
16th September 1963 expressed its agreement with the reasoning of the
Commission, as regards these two cases;
Whereas the Commission limited its consideration of the present
fourteen cases to the question of admissibility and considered that it
would not be realistic to set up a Sub-Commission in accordance with
Articles 28 and 29 (art. 28, art. 29) of the Convention as the facts
were fully ascertained and the question of a friendly settlement did
not arise;
Considering that this exceptional procedure is explained by
reason of the fact that during the examination of these cases the
Austrian legislation has been amended by the Federal Law of
27th March 1963, in such a way as to permit all these applicants to have
their cases re-examined by the Austrian courts;
Considering that the Committee of Ministers is called on to take a
decision in circumstances which are not exactly those envisaged in
Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention and that the Committee should
act as closely as possible in accordance with the spirit of that
Article;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention,
Maintains the joinder of these fourteen Applications;
Taking account of its Resolution (63) DH 2 in the cases of Pataki
and Dunshirn against Austria, the reasoning of which is applicable to
the present cases;
Expressing its satisfaction at the legislative measures
introduced by the Austrian Government to ensure the full application
of the Convention on Human Rights,
Decides that no further measures need be taken in the present
case.