Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
April 1997
Stallinger and Kuso v. Austria - 14696/89 and 14697/89
Judgment 23.4.1997
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Independent tribunal
Independence and impartiality of regional land reform boards: no violation
Public hearing
Decisions on land consolidation given without a public hearing: 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.Right to an "independent and impartial tribunal"
Applicants did not identify any reason why Court should depart from its case-law.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
B.Right to a "public hearing"
1.Austria's reservation
Although hearings before land reform boards were not open to public, Article 6 § 1 requirements complied with if shortcoming subsequently remedied by Administrative Court.
Applicants' express requests for oral hearings before Administrative Court was refused pursuant to section 39 (2) no. 6 of Administrative Court Act - section 39 (2) no. 6 came into force in 1982, whereas Austria ratified Convention and made reservation in 1958 ‑ reservation does not apply.
2.Compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Requests for oral hearings in Administrative Court refused on ground that they were not likely to clarify the case further ‑ Government have not identified any exceptional circumstances for dispensing with oral hearing.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
C.Other complaints
Not pursued before Court and not necessary to examine of Court's own motion.
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Pecuniary damage: Court cannot speculate as to outcome of proceedings had public hearing taken place - claim rejected.
B.Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation provides sufficient just satisfaction.
C.Costs and expenses (in domestic and Strasbourg proceedings): awarded on an equitable basis.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicants (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