Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19740708-557572
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 19:56:49+00:00
Document Index: 83923163

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 26", "l'article 27", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Irrecevable ; Réserver sa décision quant à la suite à donner aux allégations du requérant ayant trait à de prétendues entraves à l'exercice efficace du droit de recours individuelNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 5575/72Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1974-07-08;5575.72 Parties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 5575/ 72 X . v/AUSTRIA X . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 8 July 1975 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 8 juillet 1974 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requPte
Article 6 paragraph 3 d), of the Convention : Right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to examine or have examined witnesses against him . Witnesses for the prosecution heard abroad in the absence of both the accused and his counsel. Article 25, paragraph 1, of the Conventian : Concept of victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention . Alleged violations of the Convention during the trial rectified by the applicant's acquittal . A rticle 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies, Ratio legis . Article 6, paragraphe 3 d), de la Convention : Droit d'interroger ou de faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã© charge. TÃ©moins Ã charge entendus Ã l'Ã©tranger en l'absence de l'accusÃ© et de son dÃ©fenseur. Article 25, paragraphe 7, de la Convention : Notion de victime d'une violation des droits reconnus dans la Convention. L'acquittement du requÃ©rant constitue un redressement des violations qui, selon tui, auraient Ã©tÃ© commises au cours de son procÃ©s . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes. Ratio legis de la rÃ©gle. IEnglish : see p. 45)
AccusÃ© de divers crimes commis dans un camp de concentration sous le rÃ©gime nazi. Nombreux tÃ©moins Ã© charge entendus Ã i'Ã©trenger au cours de l'instruction, en l'absence de l'accusÃ© et de son dÃ©fenseur . La plupart de ces tÃ©moins ne se sont pas prÃ©sentÃ©s lors des dÃ©bats. A l'issue du procÃ©s, /'accusÃ© est acquittÃ©, peu aprÃ©s l'introduction de sa requÃªte mais plusieursmois avant l'examen de celle-ci par la Commission . EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint que lors de l'audition des tÃ©moins Ã charge Ã l'Ã©tranger, le requÃ©rant et son dÃ©fenseur n'ont pas eu la possibilitÃ© de faire poser des questions aux tÃ©moins . Il allÃ©gue la violation de l'article 6, Â§ 3 dl, de la Convention qui stipule que u tout accusÃ© a droit notamment Ã interroger ou faire interroger les tÃ©moins Ã charge et obtenir la convocation et l'interrogation des tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge dans les mÃªmes conditions que les tÃ©moins Ã charge Â» . La Commission constate que la procÃ©dure dont se plaint le requÃ©rant a abouti le 27 juin 1972 Ã un jugement par lequel l'intÃ©ressÃ© fut acquittÃ© . La question est de savoir si, devant la Commission, le requÃ©rant peut aujourd'hui se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation de la Convention au cours de la procÃ©dure . La Commission y rÃ©pond par la nÃ©gative, pour les motifs suivants : Comme le montre la rÃ©gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes de l'article 26 de la Convention, il appartient en premier lieu aux autoritÃ©s nationales de redresser les violations de la Convention qui ont pu avoir lieu . Dans bien des cas, ce redressement ne peut consister qu'en une suppression des consÃ©quences de la violation, celle-ci ne pouvant pas Ã©tre elle-mÃ©me effacÃ©e avec effe t
rÃ©troactif .Pareil redressement est donc, dans le systÃ¨me de la Convention, un moyen par lequel les Etats peuvent Ã©viter d'avoir Ã rÃ©pondre devant les organes de la Convention . En l'espÃ©ce, le fait que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© mis au bÃ©nÃ©fice d'un acquittement constitue pour lui un redressement des violations de la Convention qui, selon lui, aurait Ã©tÃ© commises au cours du procÃ©s . II en irait d'ailleurs de mÃªme si le requÃ©rant, ayant Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©, avait vu le jugement annulÃ©, fOt-ce pour un motif Ã©tranger Ã la Convention . Il s'ensuit que, devant la Commission, le requArant ne peut pas lÃ©gitimement faire grie fauGovernmtichdesprÃ©nuviolat,desrqu Ãªt,dÃ©porvue d'objet, doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention . Elle doit donc Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable, en application de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LA REGUETEIRRECEVABLE . Summary of the facts Charged with several crimes committed in a concentration camp under the Nazi regime. Many witnesses for the prosecution heard abroad during the preliminary judicial investigations, in the absence of both the applicant and his counsel . Most of these witnesses were not present at the hearing . At the end of trial, the accused was acquitted, shortly after the introduction of the application but several months before its consideration by the Commission .
I TRANSL ATION I THE LAW The applicant complains that witnesses against him have been heard abroad and that neither he nor his counsel had an opportunity to have these witnesses examined on behalf of the defence . He alleges a violation of Article 6 (3) Idl . This provision reads as follows "131 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights : Idl to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him . "
- The Commission nÃ´tes that the criminal proceedings complained of ended on 27 June 1972 with the applicant's acquittal . The question arises whether the applicant may now claim before the Commission to be a victim of a violation of the Convention committed during the above proceedings . The Commission answers in the negative for the following reasons : As shown by the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 of the Convention, it first falls to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention . In many cases, the violation itself cannot be wiped out with retroactive effect . (No restitutio in integrum can be made) . Only reparation can be made and constitute the redress . Such redress is thus, in the Convention system, a means whereby a State can avoid scrutiny by the organs of the Convention .
In the present case, the alleged violation of the Convention at the trial were rectified by the applicant's acquittal . They would similarly have been rectified by the quashing of the applicant's possible conviction, even on ground outside the scope of the Convention . It follows that the applicant may not complain before the Commission of the above alleged violations of the Convention by the Austrian Government . The application is therefore without purpose and must be considered as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convvention . It must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 paragraph (2) of the Convention .
- 45 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : CommissionDate de la décision : 08/07/1974Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page