Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF ALKIN v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20365/92 • ECHR ID: 001-32

Document date: March 14, 1996

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

CASE OF ALKIN v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 20365/92 • ECHR ID: 001-32

Document date: March 14, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Alkin 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 98/1995/604/692. 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 24 January and

21 February 1996, and composed of the following judges:

Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Chairman,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr R. Macdonald,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Republic of

Austria lodged with the Court on 10 November 1995 by a Turkish

national, Mr Ismail Alkin, within the three-month period laid

down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47)

of the Convention;

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 that of the

Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or 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 28 June 1995

on the application (no. 20365/92) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Alkin on 15 July 1992;

Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had a

fair hearing with regard to his claim for compensation for

detention on remand, and that he had had no possibility to

comment on the submissions ("croquis") filed with the Innsbruck

Court of Appeal by the prosecution, and alleged a breach of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In

the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...";

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

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

Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court on

account, inter alia, of the alleged failure on the part of the

Austrian State to implement fully earlier judgments of the Court

against it as regards the right of the defence to have sufficient

time to reply to the "croquis";

Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention

and Rule 34 paras. 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

right of the defence to respond to the "croquis" and

with regard to the right to a fair hearing, within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention; 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 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

14 March 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Louis-Edmond PETTITI

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant