Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF FEINGOLD v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20864/92 • ECHR ID: 001-52

Document date: October 21, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF FEINGOLD v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20864/92 • ECHR ID: 001-52

Document date: October 21, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Feingold 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 110/1996/729/926. 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 September 1996, and

composed of the following judges:

Mr R. Macdonald, Chairman,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of Austria

dated 29 August 1996 lodged with the Court by a British national,

Mr Neville Noah Feingold, on 2 September 1996;

Whereas Austria has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 (art. 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 the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the

Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or by the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of 11 April 1996 on the

application (no. 20864/92) lodged with the Commission by Mr Feingold

on 12 October 1992;

Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 29 May 1996, in accordance with

Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant complained (i) of the incorrect legal

classification of the offence for which he was tried in the Austrian

criminal courts and (ii) that he had not had a fair trial before those

courts, particularly because the hearing in the Supreme Court was not

public, he was not supplied with a copy of the principal public

prosecutor's observations, was unable to have witnesses summoned and

could not obtain the assistance of an interpreter, and alleged breaches

of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention (right to

non-discrimination), taken in conjunction with Articles 5 para. 1 (a)

(art. 14+5-1-a) (lawfulness of detention) and 7 para. 1 (art. 14+7-1)

(offences to be defined by law), and of Article 6 paras. 1 (art. 6-1)

(right to a fair trial), 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) (right of everyone to

obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under

the same conditions as witnesses against him) and 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e)

(right to have the free assistance of an interpreter);

Whereas on 6 April 1995 the Commission declared admissible the

complaint relating to the failure to communicate the principal public

prosecutor's observations to the defence (Article 6 para. 1)

(art. 6-1) and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible;

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

requested the Court to hold that there had been a breach of Article 14

of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 5 para. 1 (a) and

7 para. 1, (art. 14+5-1-a, art. 14+7-1) and of Article 6 paras. 1,

3 (d) and 3 (e) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d, art. 6-3-e) and to award him

just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention;

Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1,

art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4

of Rules of Court B,

1. Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the

Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an

application the case must be referred to it within a period of

three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's

report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to

the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a

violation of the Convention;

2. Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,

since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee

of Ministers on 29 May 1996 and the application sent to the Court

on 29 August 1996, that is before expiry of the three-month

period, as evidenced by the postmark;

3. 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 principle of

"equality of arms" for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards communication of

the principal public prosecutor's observations to the

defence, while consideration of the other complaints lies

outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has

declared them inadmissible; 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;

4. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

considered by the Court.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

21 October 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Ronald MACDONALD

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant