Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19751002-681474
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 14:55:17+00:00
Document Index: 292574179

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Violation de l'Art. 8 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisantNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6814/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1975-10-02;6814.74 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 11-1) FONDER ET S'AFFILIER A DES SYNDICATS, (Art. 11-1) INTERET DES MEMBRESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6814/7 4 X . v/AUSTRIA X . c ./AUTRICH E DECISION of 2 October 1975 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 2 octobre 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requit e
Article 26 of the Convention : Final domestic decision with regard to the applicant's complaints . Article 26 of the Convention : Whether the period of six months should start to run from the date when the applicant himself was informed of the final dontestic decision, pronounced in his absence, notwithstanding its previous communication to the counsel appointed ex-officio for his defense . (Unresolved) Article 26 de la requÃ©rant.
Convention : DÃ©ctsion interne dÃ©finitive quant aux griefs du
Article 26 de fe Convention : Le point de dÃ©part du dÃ©lai de six mois doit-il Ã©tre fixÃ© au moment oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive rendue par dÃ©faut, en dÃ©pit de la communication antÃ©rieure faite Ã l'avocat commis d'office pour le dÃ©fendre ? (Non rÃ©soful .
IfranÃ§ais : voir p. 110)
Applicant charged with several financial offences . In spite of various notifications, including official notices in the press, the applicant whose address was unknown to the judicial authorities, was not informed of the opening of his triaf . By virtue of the Code of Financial Offences, he was therefore treated as a person who had fled . Relevant provisions of the above Code provide for the continuation of the criminal procedure in the absence of the accused even if he has not been heard during the prefiminary investigation . investigation . In February 1971, the Regionaf Court of Vienna pronounced, in the absence of the applicant, a sentence composed of 2 months' imprisonment and several fines, The sentence was handed over to the ex-officio counsel appointed for his defence. The plea of nullity lodged by this lawyer was rejected by the Supreme Court in June 1971. The appficant onfy fearnt of this conviction when he was arrested in February 1971 . On several occasions, the applicant tried to achieve the payment of the fines by instalments, objecting against the fact that the sentence had not been served upon him personnafA'. These objections were finafly rejected by the court of appeal of Vienna in April 1974.
THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains that certain procedural guarantees provided for in Art . 6 of the Convention have not been observed in the criminal proceedings which were conducted against him in his absence . 2 . The Commission has first examined the question whether the applicant has fulfilled the conditions for lodging an application with the Commission . 3 . Art . 26 of the Convention reads as follows : "The Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedie s have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken . " 4 . The applicant submits that the final decision taken in his case is the decision of the Vienna Court of Appeal of 5 April 1974, which was served upon him on 18 April 1974 . The applicant is of the opinion that the introduction of the present application on 8 October 1974 was within the period of six months provided for in Art . 26 of the Convention, which in his submission has to be counted from the date when the final decision was served upon him . However, the Commission finds that the Court of Appeal's decision of 5 April 1974 only concerns the question whether the sentence had to be served upon the applicant personally . It does not concern the substance of the applicant's complaints which are exclusively related to the criminal proceedings prior to the pronouncing of the above-mentioned sentence against him . Therefore this decision cannot be considered as the final domestic decision with regard to the applicant's complaints, and it is hence irrelevant whether the period of six months has to be counted as from the passing of the decision ( 5 April 1974) or as from its communication to the applicant (18 April 1974) .
5 . It remains to be seen whether the conditions of Art . 26 of the Convention have not otherwise been met by the applicant . 6 . The Commission notes that the criminal proceedings of which the applicant complains took place in the years 1970 and 1971 . The applicant's conviction for the criminal offence of commercial defraudation of the revenue became final with the Supreme Court's decision of . . . June 1971 by which the plea of nullity lodged by the applicant's official counsel was rejected . Since no further remedy exists in the Austrian legal system against a decision of the Supreme Court it is this decision which has to be considered as the final domestic decision on the matters concerning the criminal procedure which are at the basis of the applicant's complaint under Art . 6 of the Convention . 7 . The Commission further notes that the Supreme Court's decision was served upon the official counsel who had been appointed to represent the applicant in the criminal procedure because of his absence, and that it was brought to the applicant's own knowledge only at a much later date, namely on . . . February 1972 when he was arrested by the Vienna police . The Commission observes that in a case like the present one there could be an issue whether the period of six months under Art . 26 of the Convention should stan to run from the date when the applicant himself was informed of the final domestic decision, notwithstanding its previous communication to his oHicial counsel, but this question can be left open in thepresent case . Even assuming that the period ran from . . . February 1972 it would have expired o n
. . . August 1972 . The applicant, however, has introduced his application to the Commission only on 8 October 1974 . The applicant has therefore not complied with the rules of Art . 26 of the Convention and his application must consequently be rejected under Article 27, para, ( 3) of the Convention .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . RÃ©sumÃ© des faits RequÃ©rant poursuivi pour dÃ©lirs financiers . En dÃ©pit de plusieurs notifications, notamment par voie de presse, le requÃ©rant, dont l'adresse Ã©tait alors inconnue des autoritÃ©s judiciaires, n'eut pas connaissance de l'ouverture du procÃ©s. ConformÃ©ment au code sur les dÃ©lits financiers, il fut traitÃ© comme une personne se soustrayant Ã la justice . Les dispositions particuliÃ©res du code susmentionnÃ© permettent le dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure en l'absence de l'accusÃ©, mÃ©me si celui-ci n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendu au cours de l'instruction prÃ©paratoire . En fÃ©vrier 1971, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne condamna par dÃ©laut le requÃ©rant Ã 2 mois de prison et diverses amendes. Le jugement fut signifiÃ© Ã l'avocat commis d'office pour le dÃ©fendre . Le recours en nullitÃ© )ormÃ© par celuici fut rejetÃ© par la Cour SuprÃªme en juin 1971 . Le requÃ©rent fut arrÃ©tÃ© en fÃ©vrier 1972, Ã©poque Ã laquelle il fut informÃ© de se condamnation. A diverses reprises, il tenta d'obtenir des lacilitÃ©s pour le paiements des amendes, en opposant aux tribunaux que le jugement ne lui avait pas Ã©tÃ© signiliÃ© personnellement. Ces objections furent dÃ©linitivement rejetÃ©es par la cour d'appel de Vienne en avril 1974 .
I TRADUCT/ON I EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que certaines des garanties procÃ©durales visÃ©es Ã l'article 6 de la Convention n'aient pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©spectÃ©es au cours d'un procÃ©s pÃ©nal ouvert contre lui par dÃ©faut . 2 . La Commission a examinÃ© en premier lieu si les conditions requises pour l'introduction d'une requÃªte se trouvaient rÃ©unies en l'espÃ©ce . 3 . L'article 26 de la Convention dispose qu e a La Commission ne peut Ã©tre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes du droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus et dans le dÃ©lai de six mois, Ã partir de la date de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive n .
4 . Le requÃ©rant fait valoir que la dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive intervenue dans son affaire est l'arrÃªt rendu le 5 avril 1974 par la cour d'appel de Vienne . Cet arrÃªt lui fut signifiÃ© le 18 avril 1974 . Le requÃ©rant estime que l'introduction de sa requÃ©te le 8 octobre 1974 se situait dans le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, le point de dÃ©part dudit dÃ©lai devant, selon lui, Ãªtre fixÃ© au jours de la signification Ã personne de la dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive . La Commission relÃ©ve toutefois que l'arrÃ©t de la cour d'appel du 5 avril 1974 tranche uniquement la question de savoir si le jugement de condamnation d u
requÃ©rant aurait dÃ» lui Ã©tre signifiÃ© Ã personne . Cet arrÃªt n'affecte en rien l'objet de la prÃ©sente requÃªte qui concerne exclusivement la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale antÃ©rieure au prononcÃ© de la condamnation susmentionnÃ©e . L'arrÃªt de la cour d'appel ne peut donc pas Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive quant aux griefs du requÃ©rant . La question de savoir si le point de dÃ©part du dÃ©lai de six mois doit Ã©tre fixÃ© au jour du prononcÃ© 15 avril 1974) ou de la signification 118 a'viil 1974) de cette dÃ©cision est dÃ¨s lors sans pertinence pour la prÃ©sente affaire . 5 . II reste Ã Ã©tudier si le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait de quelqu'autre maniÃ©re aux conditions de l'article 26 de la Convention . 6 . La Commission note que la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale incriminÃ©e s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e au cours des annÃ©es 1970 et 1971 . La condamnation du requÃ©rant du chef de fraude commerciale est devenue dÃ©finitive aprÃ©s l'arrÃªt de la Cour SuprSme en date du . . . juin 1971, rejetant le recours en nullitÃ© formÃ© par le conseil officiel du requArant . Aucun recours ultÃ©rieur n'existant en droit autrichien contre les dÃ©cisions de la Cour SuprÃ©me, cet arrÃ©t doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive pour la matiÃ©re dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e Ã la Commission, sur la base de l'article 6 de la Convention, relativement Ã la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . 7 . La Commission relÃ©ve que cet arrÃ©t a Ã©tÃ© signifiÃ© Ã l'avocat dÃ©signÃ© par la Cour pour reprÃ©senter le requÃ©rant qui faisait dÃ©faut . Ce dernier n'a eu connaissance du jugement que longtemps aprÃ©s, lors de son arrestation par la police viennoise le . . . fÃ©vrier 1972 . Dans une affaire de ce genre, la question de savoir si le point de dÃ©part du dÃ©lai de six mois visÃ© Ã l'article 26 de la Convention doit Ptre fixÃ© au moment oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive, en dÃ©pit de la communication antÃ©rieure faite Ã l'avocat, pourrait donner lieu Ã dÃ©bat juritlique . La Commission estime toutefois que cette question peut demeurer ouverte en l'espÃ©ce . En effet, Ã supposer m8me que le dÃ©lai n'ait commencÃ© Ã© courir que le . . . fÃ©vrier 1972, il auiait expirÃ© le . . . aoÃ¹t 1972 tandis que le requÃ©rant n'a introduit sa requÃªte auprÃ©s de la Commission que le 8 octobre 1974 . Il en rÃ©sulte que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait aux conditions que l'article 26 de la Convention . Sa requÃªte doit dis lors Ã©tre rejetÃ©e, par application de l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA RE Q UÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
- 111 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 02/10/1975Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page