Search
document

Document text Analytics

PATAKI AND DUNSHIRN AGAINST AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 596/59;789/60 • ECHR ID: 001-49202

Document date: September 16, 1963

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

PATAKI AND DUNSHIRN AGAINST AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 596/59;789/60 • ECHR ID: 001-49202

Document date: September 16, 1963

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

referred to as "the Convention");

Having regard to the Report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the

Convention, and relating to the Applications lodged respectively by

Franz Pataki (No. 596/59) and Johann Dunshirn (No. 789/60), Austrian

nationals, against Austria;

Whereas the Commission transmitted the said Report to the Committee of

Ministers on 6th May 1963, and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention

has elapsed without the case having been brought before the Court in

pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas, in their Applications, the applicants complain of several

violations of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention, alleged to have

taken place during judicial proceedings instituted against each of

them separately in Austria, as a result of which they were convicted

of certain criminal offences;

Whereas the Commission, having rejected part of the Application

of Mr Pataki as inadmissible, retained as admissible, for the purpose

of establishing the facts and formulating an opinion thereon, the

following issues:

1. as regards the Application of Pataki

the compatibility of section 294, paragraph 3 of the Austrian Code of

Criminal Procedure and of the procedure followed by the Regional Court

of Appeal in the present case with the provisions of Article 6,

paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) sub-paragraph (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c)

of the Convention;

2. as regards the Application of Dunshirn

the entire application in which "the Applicant alleged that there had

been a violation of Article 6 (art. 6), in that neither the Applicant

nor his lawyer was allowed to be present during the proceedings before

the Regional Court of Appeal and that only the arguments of the Public

Prosecutor were heard";

Whereas the Commission, after ordering the joinder of these two

cases in accordance with Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure, expressed

in its Report, adopted on 28 March 1963, the opinion:

"that the proceedings conducted in the present cases on the basis of

section 294, paragraph (3), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was

then worded, were not in conformity with the Convention";

Whereas by an Act entitled "Federal Law of 27 March 1963 on the

reopening of appeal proceedings in criminal cases" (Bundesgesetz vom

27 März 1963 über die Erneuerung von Berufungsverfahren in

Strafsachen, BGBl, Nr. 66/1963), the Austrian legislation has been

amended in such a way as to make available a new means of access to

the courts, which will now permit the applicants, MM. Pataki and

Dunshirn, to have their cases re-examined by the Austrian Courts;

Whereas the Commission considers that this new procedure which has

been instituted will not give rise to the objections which it

expressed concerning the previous procedure;

Whereas these two cases are analogous;

Agreeing with the reasoning of the Commission;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph (1)

(art. 32-1), of the Convention,

Maintains the joinder of the cases of Franz Pataki (No. 596/59)

and Johann Dunshirn (No. 789/60);

Takes note of the Report of the Commission;

Taking account of the amendment made to the Austrian legislation

by the said Federal Law of 27 March 1963;

Expressing its satisfaction at the legislative measures

introduced by the Austrian Government to ensure the full application

of the Convention on Human Rights,

Decides that no further action is required in the present cases.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant