CASE OF S.L. v. AUSTRIAPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VAJIĆ JOINED BY JUDGES BOTOUCHAROVA AND KOVLER
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: January 9, 2003
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VAJIĆ JOINED BY JUDGES BOTOUCHAROVA AND KOVLER
In the present case I do not share the opinion of the majority on the question of compensation to be awarded to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention. Taking account of the facts of the present case I do not see any reason to depart from the established case-law of the Court concerning the maintenance in force of legislation penalising homosexual acts between consenting adults (see the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment (just satisfaction) of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, pp.7 -8, § 14; the Norris v. Ireland judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 21-22, § 50; the Modinos v. Cyprus judgment of 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259, p. 12, § 30) in which no non-pecuniary damage was awarded. This is all the more so as Austria has voluntarily taken steps to modify the situation by changing the law in question (i.e. its Criminal Code, see § 15 of the judgment) thus bringing it in line with the requirements of the Convention and its case-law. This being so and having regard to the nature of the breach found, I am of the opinion that in relation to the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage the present judgment constitutes in itself adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41.