Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF PFEIFER AND PLANKL AGAINST AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 10802/84 • ECHR ID: 001-55557

Document date: December 15, 1992

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

CASE OF PFEIFER AND PLANKL AGAINST AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 10802/84 • ECHR ID: 001-55557

Document date: December 15, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the Pfeifer and Plankl case delivered on

25 February 1992 and transmitted the same day to the Committee

of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on

23 September 1983 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention

by Mr Heinrich Pfeifer and Mrs Margit Plankl, Austrian nationals,

who complained inter alia of the lack of impartiality of judges

in a criminal procedure against the first applicant and of the

censorship of correspondence between the applicants while both

in detention on remand;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 12 November 1990 and by the Government of Austria

on 6 February 1991;

Whereas in its judgment of 25 February 1992 the Court:

- held, by eight votes to one, that it had jurisdiction

to examine the Government's preliminary objections;

- by unanimous votes, joined to the merits the objection

relating to Mr Pfeifer's complaint based on Article 6,

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), but dismissed it after

examining the merits;

- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of

Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);

- held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine

the objection relating to the alleged violation of

Article 8 (art. 8) in the case of Mr Pfeifer;

- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of

Article 8 (art. 8) with respect to both applicants;

- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was

within three months to pay 20 000 Austrian schillings

to Mr Pfeifer and 1 500 Austrian schillings to

Mrs Plankl, and 60 000 Austrian schillings to the two

applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses;

- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for

just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention;

Having invited the Government of Austria to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of

25 February 1992, having regard to its obligation under

Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of Austria gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

eesolution;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of Austria

has paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment,

Declares, after having taken note of the information

supplied by the Government of Austria, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (92)64

Information provided by the Government of Austria

during the examination of the Pfeifer and Plankl case

by the Committee of Ministers

By circular (Erlass) of 20 June 1992 the Federal Ministry

of Justice drew the attention of the Appeal Court Presidents and

of the General Prosecutors to the consequences to be drawn from

the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), found by the

Court in the present case and invited them to follow in future

the following principles:

a. The question of the possible disqualification of all

trial judges must be clarified before a date for the

hearing is set.

b. If one of the judges called to sit is to be

disqualified, the accused must as a matter of principle

(grundsätzlich) not be invited to waive his right to apply

for disqualification of that judge.

c. Only in exceptional cases, for example when it would be

in the accused's interest not to have the proceedings

delayed, a waiver from the accused to apply for

disqualification could be envisaged, on the condition that

minimum procedural guarantees be respected, for example,

interrogation by a judge not concerned by the

disqualification and in the presence of the accused's

lawyer.

The sums awarded to the applicants by the Court were paid

on 5 May 1992.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant