Search
document

Document text Analytics

PUTZ v. AUSTRIADISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.A. NØRGAARD, JOINED BY MR. S. TRECHSEL,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 11, 1994

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

PUTZ v. AUSTRIADISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.A. NØRGAARD, JOINED BY MR. S. TRECHSEL,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: October 11, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.A. NØRGAARD, JOINED BY MR. S. TRECHSEL,

MRS. G.H. THUNE, MM. F. MARTINEZ, M.P. PELLONPÄÄ AND I. BÉKÉS

We regret that we cannot share the opinion of the majority of the

Commission that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the

Convention.

We find that the present case cannot be distinguished from the

circumstances underlying the Court's Ravnsborg judgment of

23 March 1994.

It is true that the fines for offences against the good order in

court proceedings under Austrian law attain the range of fines provided

for under the Austrian Penal Code. They are also fairly higher than

the maximum penalty at stake in the Ravnsborg case, which amounted to

1,000 Swedish kronor and was convertible into a term of imprisonment

only following further court proceedings in which the offender had to

be summoned for an oral hearing. Moreover, there is no specific

provision under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure that the person

concerned has to be heard by the court before a fine is converted into

a term of imprisonment.

Nevertheless, weighing all aspects, we consider that the

penalties involved in the present case remain within the limits of what

can reasonably be considered as a sanction for an offence of a

disciplinary nature. In our opinion, there are no features important

enough to warrant classifying these offences against the good order in

court proceedings as "criminal" under the Convention, and Article 6 of

the convention does not, therefore, apply.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

23 September 1991 Introduction of application

3 October 1991 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

11 March 1992 Commission's decision to communicate the

case to the respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit observations

on admissibility and merits

13 November 1992 Government's observations

11 December 1992 Commission's grant of legal aid

20 October 1992 Applicant's observations in reply

9 February 1993 Applicant's observations amended

11 May 1993 Commission's decision to hold a hearing

3 December 1993 Hearing on admissibility and merits

3 December 1993 Commission's decision to declare

application in part admissible and in part

inadmissible

Examination of the merits

9 April 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

11 October 1994 Commission's deliberations on the merits

and final vote

11 October 1994 Adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant