Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)3 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Krumpholz against Austria

(Application No. 13201/05, judgment of 18/03/2010, final on 18/06/2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the applicant ’ s right to silence and the presumption of innocence (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent State paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)3

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Krumpholz against Austria

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the v iolation of the applicant ’ s right to silence and the presumption of innocence as a result of a penal order by the Independent Administrative Panel in 2003 issued against him for exceeding the speed limits because the Panel drew inferences from the applicant ’ s refusal to disclose the identity of the driver and because of the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2). The Court considered that the Panel should have held a hearing of its own motion if it wished to draw inferences from the applicant ’ s silence so as to question him and obtain a direct impression of his credibility.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

-

7 000 EUR

7 000 EUR

Paid on 15/09/2010

b) Individual measures

The Court rejected the applicant ’ s claim for pecuniary damage as the Court could not speculate what would have been the outcome of the proceedings if they had satisfied the Convention ’ s requirements. As the applicant submitted no claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court made no award under that head either. No other individual measure except for the payment of costs and expenses was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The judgment was translated and published in ÖJZ 2010, p. 782 and Newsletter Menschenrechte 2/2010. Dissemination to the domestic authorities was done via the usual Circular Note of the Federal Chancellery of 22 September 2010, which was also published on the website of the Prime Minister ’ s Office ( http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView . axd?CobId=40733 ) . A separate dissemination was done, inter alia , to the Independent Administrative Panel on 23 March 2010.

The Austrian authorities have indicated that this case was of an isolated nature and that no similar cases had come to their attention, nor was any similar complaint communicated by the Court.

In view of the above, no further general measure was deemed necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 11 36 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .