Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
February 1992
Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria - 10802/84
Judgment 25.2.1992
Article 6
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Two Regional Court judges exercising investigative and judicial functions in turn in same criminal proceedings: violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for correspondence
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 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Government’s preliminary objection
Objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in respect of first applicant’s complaint under Article 6.
Whether Court had jurisdiction: yes (eight votes to one) – well established case-law and no estoppel.
Merits of objection: objection joined to merits of case (unanimously), because linked to validity of applicant’s waiver of his right to challenge judges.
B.Merits of the complaint
Composition of Regional Court – complaints that tribunal not “impartial” and not “established by law” coincided in substance in this case – rule of national law disqualifying judge from sitting if previously involved with case as investigating judge – non-observance here and hence doubt as to impartiality of tribunal from point of view of national law itself – no need to determine precise role played by two judges in question during investigative stage.
Applicant’s waiver: in so far as permissible, waiver of a right guaranteed by the convention must be established in a non-equivocal manner and requires minimum guarantees – no provision of Austrian law allowing for express waiver of right to be tried by a court whose composition is in accordance with the laws, or regulating procedure to be followed for this purpose – waiver in issue not effective, given the surrounding circumstances.
Conclusion: objection dismissed and violation (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Government’s preliminary objection
Objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to first applicant only – measure in issue affecting both applicants at the same time – second applicant having undeniably exhausted domestic remedies without success: pointless to enquire whether first applicant also did so.
Conclusion: no need to examine objection (unanimously).
B.Merits of the complaint
Deletion of certain passages in letter: undisputed interference with both applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence.
Measure in accordance with the law and pursuing legitimate aims: protection of rights of others and prevention of crime.
Whether interference necessary – some measure of control over prisoners’ correspondence compatible with Convention but must not exceed what is required by legitimate aims pursued – private letter containing strong expressions, but which only addressee and investigating judge should have read – interference in question less serious than stopping of letter but still disproportionate in the circumstances.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Non-pecuniary damage: no causal link between violations of Articles 6 and 8 and conditions of detention – both applicants’ claims dismissed.
B.Costs and expenses
Reimbursement on equitable basis of costs incurred before national courts and Convention institutions.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sums to applicants for costs and expenses (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy