Search
document

Document text Analytics

FRIEDL v. AUSTRIAPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, H.G. SCHERMERS,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 19, 1994

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

FRIEDL v. AUSTRIAPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, H.G. SCHERMERS,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 19, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, H.G. SCHERMERS,

C.L. ROZAKIS, Mrs. J. LIDDY, MM. L. LOUCAIDES, M.P. PELLONPÄÄ,

N. BRATZA, E. KONSTANTINOV, D. SVÁBY

We cannot share the view of the majority of the Commission that

there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention regarding

the applicant's complaint about the taking of photographs in the course

of the manifestation, and their retention.

We find that in the light of the facts of the present case and

the nature of the legal issues raised, the applicant's claim that the

taking of the photographs and their retention amounted to a violation

of his right to respect for his private life is "arguable" for the

purposes of Article 13. In this respect, we note that the Commission

declared this complaint admissible on the ground that it raised serious

questions of fact and law which could only be resolved by an

examination as to its merits, and that the Commission reached its

finding that the taking of photographs in question did not constitute

an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private

life only after detailed consideration.

In our opinion, when a claim has been declared admissible and,

only after detailed consideration, the Commission has found that there

was no violation, it cannot be said that such a claim was not

"arguable".

Article 13 should, therefore, apply. In the circumstances of the

present case, there was no effective remedy as regards the applicant's

complaint under Article 8 para. 1.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

5 June 1989 Introduction of the application

20 July 1989 Registration of the application

Examination of Admissibility

27 May 1991 Commission's decision to invite

the Government to submit observations on

the admissibility and merits of the

application

21 October 1991 Government's observations

7 January 1992 Applicants' observations in reply

30 November 1992 Commission's decision to declare the

applicant's complaints under Article 8 and

under Article 13 in conjunction with

Article 8 of the Convention admissible,

and to declare the applicant's complaint

under Article 11 of the Convention

inadmissible.

3 February 1993 Government's supplementary observations

Examination of the merits

4 September 1993) Commission's consideration of the state of

15 January 1994 ) proceedings

9 May 1994 Commission's deliberations on the

merits and final vote

19 May 1994 Adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant