Search
document

Document text Analytics

BRANDSTETTER CASE

Doc ref: 11170/84;12876/87;13468/87 • ECHR ID: 001-55516

Document date: November 18, 1991

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

BRANDSTETTER CASE

Doc ref: 11170/84;12876/87;13468/87 • ECHR ID: 001-55516

Document date: November 18, 1991

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 Brandstetter case delivered on 28 August 1991 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in three applications

against Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human

Rights on 6 September 1984, 13 March 1987 and 21 October 1987

under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by

Mr Karl Brandstetter, an Austrian national, who complained inter

alia that the public prosecutor's submissions filed before the

appellate court in defamation proceedings against him were not

communicated to him;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 11 July 1990 and by the Government of Austria on

1 October 1990;

Whereas in its judgment of 28 August 1991 the Court:

- held unanimously that, in the proceedings concerning the

quality of the wine, there was no violation of Article 6,

paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 3.d

(art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d);

- held unanimously that, in the same proceedings, there was

no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);

- rejected unanimously the preliminary objection which the

government raised as regards expert evidence in the proceedings

concerning the charge of tampering with evidence;

- held unanimously that, in those proceedings, there was no

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with

Article 6, paragraph 3.d (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d);

- held unanimously that, as regards those proceedings, it was

not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6,

paragraphs 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2);

- held unanimously that, in the defamation proceedings, there

was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);

- held by six votes to three that, in those proceedings, there

was a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) on appeal;

- held unanimously that the respondent state was to pay to the

applicant, for costs and expenses, 60 000 Austrian schillings;

- 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

28 August 1991, having regard to its obligation under Article 53

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

Having satisfied itself that the Government of Austria paid

to the applicant on 9 October 1991 the sum provided for in the

judgment,

Declares that it has exercised its functions under

Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant