PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 38549/97) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Snjezana Vostic (“the applicant”), on 22 September 1997.

The applicant was represented by Mr C. Schwab, a lawyer practising in Wels. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the court decisions in compensation proceedings for detention on remand violated the presumption of innocence.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 19 June 2001 the Court declared the application admissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Austria.

On 10 April 1996 the applicant was arrested and on 12 April the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht) remanded her in custody on suspicion of murder. Her repeated requests for release remained unsuccessful.

On 13 December 1996 the Wels Regional Court, sitting as an assize court, composed of three professional judges and an eight member jury, acquitted the applicant. The jury answered the main question as to murder with six votes “no” and two votes “yes”. In the record of its deliberations, the jury gave the following reasons for its decision: “The evidence produced at the trial is not sufficient to convict the accused. As the incriminating witnesses were partially not credible – acquittal in dubio”. Upon the pronouncement of the acquittal, the applicant was released.

Immediately after the pronouncement of the acquittal, at the same hearing, the applicant requested compensation for her detention on remand. The Wels Regional Court, with the same composition as above, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that, apart from the fact that the jury’s verdict had not been unanimous, the suspicion against the applicant had not been dispelled. Thus the requirements of section 2 (1)(b) of the Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969 – “the 1969 Act”) were not met. In particular, the statement of the applicant’s parents that she had spent the night of the murder at their home was not credible. In addition, she had owned a weapon which could have been the one used for the murder and her defence that she had no contact with the victim shortly before the commission of the crime had been disproved by the statements of a number of witnesses. The decision was served on the applicant after her acquittal had become final on 17 December 1996.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht). She argued that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the main suspicion against her had been dispelled during the trial.

On 20 June 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the case of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), it considered that only a decision which, following the accused’s acquittal, expressed the view that he or she was guilty could violate the presumption of innocence, whereas the Regional Court had only found that there was a remaining suspicion against the applicant. Further, referring to the Constitutional Court’s (Verfassungsgerichtshof) judgment of 29 September 1994, it found that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was not in itself incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal continued as follows: “Nor does the principle of the presumption of innocence prevent the prosecuting authorities from suspecting someone of having committed an offence. By section 2(1)(b) of the [1969 Act], refusal of a claim [for compensation] (on the ground that suspicion has not been dispelled) depends not on proven guilt but on the possibility that the person concerned may have committed the offence and therefore on a (persisting) suspicion... In the instant case it was precisely such a suspicion concerning Snjezana Vostic that had not been wholly dispelled, particularly in view of the fact that it was still possible that Snjezana Vostic’s gun had been the murder weapon; furthermore, inconsistencies remain unresolved. The trial court thus rightly held that the testimony given by the parents of the appellant, whose alibi related to the night of 31 March to 1 April 1996, was not credible; and Snjezana Vostic’s own testimony to the effect that she had last seen Sejdo Nadarevic in mid-February 1996 was in the end disproved by the witnesses who gave evidence at the trial.”