Comité de filtrage /Screening Panel

AFFAIRE WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT mbH c. AUTRICHE

CASE OF WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT mbH v. AUSTRIA

( 66 / 1998 / 969 / 1184 )

DECISION

STRASBOURG

1 er septembre/1 September 1998

In the case of Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria [1] ,

The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 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] ,

Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 August 1998, and composed of the following judges:

Mr A.N. Loizou , Chairman , Mr F. Matscher , Mr J.M. Morenilla , and also of Mr H. Petzold , Registrar ,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court on 23 June 1998 by Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellschaft mbH , a limited company with its registered office in Vienna (Austria), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention;

Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention 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 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission’s report of 16 April 1998 on the application (no. 26113/95 ) lodged with the Commission by the Wirtschafts-Trend company on 20 December 1994 ;

Whereas the applicant company complained that its conviction by the Austrian Supreme Court for publishing an article in the magazine Profil criticising government policy on political asylum had infringed its right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, and also that it had not had a fair trial, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since the Vienna Court of Appeal had refused to hear witnesses called by the defence to give evidence on its behalf;

Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated (i) that it sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention, inter alia , on the ground that, despite the Court’s case-law on the question, the Austrian courts judged criticism of politicians or administrative authorities more severely than criticism of private persons, and (ii) that it sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 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 requirements of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the freedom of expression of the press and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the right to a fair trial; 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 of the Council of Europe can award the applicant company 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 1 September 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed : Andreas Nicolas Loizou

Chairman

Signed : Herbert Petzold

Registrar

[1] Notes by the Registrar

. The case is numbered 66 / 1998 / 969 / 1184 . 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 States bound by Protocol No. 9.