Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19780307-742876
Timestamp: 2017-07-29 12:22:44+00:00
Document Index: 257282194

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

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6878/75Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7428/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-03-07;7428.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7428/7 6 X . c/AUSTRIA ' X . c/AUTRICHE ' DECISION of 7 March 1978 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 7 mars 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Articfe 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention : In a case where the tribunal consists of three judges and eight jurymen, who in the present case returned a unanimous verdict, the mere fact that one of the jurymen has links with the injured party does not of itself permit the conclusion that the court !s not impartial. Articte 26 of the Convention : Where it is questioned whether an assize jury has been properly constituted, domestic remedies are exhausted when the highest appellate court has examined this question and it therefore becomes unnecessary to inquire whether the accused was in a position to challenge a juryman at the trial.
Artic% 6, paragraphe 1, de fa Convention : Dans une juridiction composÃ©e de trois juges et de huit jurÃ©s Iqut; en l'espÃ¨ce, furent unanimes), les liens qu'un jurÃ© pouvait avoir avec la partie lÃ©sÃ©e ne permettent pas, Ã eux seuls, de conclure B/a partialitÃ© du tribunal . Article 26 de ta Convention : S'agissant de ta rÃ©gu/aritÃ© de la composition d'un jury d'assises, les voies de recours sont Ã©puisÃ©es lorsque la juridiction suprÃªme a examinÃ© ce point, sans qu'il faille rechercher si l'accusÃ© aurait pu rÃ©cuser un jurÃ© avant le procÃ¨s.
â¢ The applicant was represenled before the Commission by Mr K . Lindenthaler, a barrirter practising in Vienna . ' Le requÃ©rant Ã©tah reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commisaion par Mâ¢ K . Lindenthaler, avocet A Vienne.
IEnglish : see p. 38 )
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents
Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã neuf ans de prison pour tentative d'agression Ã main armÃ©e contre le caissier d'un bureau de voyage au Tyrol . Le premier jurÃ© d'assises (Obmann) Ã©tait emp/oyÃ© par l'organisme touristique dont dÃ©pend le bureau de voyage attaquÃ©. Le pourvoi en cassation du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© par la Cour suprÃªme.
EN DROIT IExtrait l Le requÃ©rant se plaint (il est vrai) que le jury de la cour d'assises d'Innsbruck n'Ã©tait pas composÃ© conformÃ©ment aux lois autrichiennes en vigueur, Ã©tant donnÃ© que le premier jurÃ© Ã©tait employÃ© de l'organisme dont dÃ©pend le bureau de voyages attaquÃ© . Selon l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention utoute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement et dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera . . . du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle . D Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur objecte Ã cet Ã©gard que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© toutes les voies de recours internes, ainsi que l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention, en ce qu'il aurait omis de rÃ©cuser le jurÃ© en question devant la juridiction de premiÃ©re instance, la cour d'assises d'Innsbruck . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, il ne suffit pas, pour satisfaire aux exigences de l'article 26 de la Convention, que le requÃ©rant ait fait valoir uniquement devant la juridiction supÃ©rieure les droits dont il allÃ©gue la violation . La Commission ne partage pas cette opinion . Elle constate que la Cour suprÃªme, loin de rejeter le pourvoi en cassation du requÃ©rant pour des motifs d'ordre procÃ©dural, s'est prononcÃ©e sur le bien-fondÃ© de ses allÃ©gations concernant la rÃ©cusation du premier jurÃ© . Sans qu'il soit nÃ©cessaire d'examiner si le requÃ©rant avait, dÃ©jÃ© en premiÃ©re instance, la possibilitÃ© de rÃ©cuser le jurÃ© concernÃ©, la Commission estime que le requÃ©rant, sur ce point, a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . Guant Ã la question de savoir si la cour d'assises d'Innsbruck pouvait Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme Ã©tant, en l'espÃ¨ce, un tribunal impartial au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, la Commission rappelle tout d'abord que la Cour suprÃ©rime, aprÃ¨s un examen dÃ©taillÃ©, a estimÃ© qu'il n'existait pas de raisons qui auraient pu justifier l'exclusion du premier jurÃ© Ã cause de ses liens avec l'organisme touristique du Tyrol . La Commission observe ensuite que, selon le droit autrichien, la culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablie Ã l'unanimitÃ© par un jury composÃ© d e
huit personnes . De plus, les questions concernant la culpabilitÃ© de l'accusÃ© et auxquelles les jurÃ©s sont tenus de rÃ©pondre sont formulÃ©es par les trois juges de carriÃ©re . La peine, enfin, a Ã©tÃ© fixÃ©e par ce mÃªme jury, complÃ©tÃ© par les trois juges de carriÃ©re composant la cour . Le seul fait que le premier jurÃ© Ã©tait employÃ© par l'organisme dont dÃ©pend le bureau attaquÃ© ne permet nullement de conclure que la cour d'assises n'Ã©tait pas impartiale . L'examen de ce grief par la Commission, tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© soulevÃ©, ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention et notamment par la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts The applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years emprisonment for attempted assault with a weapon of the clerk of a travel agency in the Tyrot. The foreman of the jury was employed by the same tourist organisation, which owned the travel agency . The applicant's plea of nullity was rejected by the Surpeme Court.
( TRANSLA T/ON ) THE LAW fExtract l The applicant complains that the jury of the Innsbruck Court of Assize was not constituted according to exisling Austrian legislation because the foreman of the jury was employed by the same organisation which owned the travel bureau which the applicant had attempted to rob . According to Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention "in the determination of . . . any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" . The Respondent Government raises the objection that the applicant has not exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article 26 of the Convention, since he failed to challenge the juryman in question before th e
Court of first instance, the Innsbruck Court of Assize . It was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention that the applicant had pleaded the rights he alleges to have been violated only before the highest appellate court . The Commission does not share this point of view . It notes that the Supreme Court, far from dismissing the applicant's appeal on procedural grounds, gave a decision on the merits of his allegations regarding the challenge of the foreman of the jury . Without it being necessary to consider whether the applicant was in a position to challenge the juryman concerned at the proceedings at first instance - the Commission finds that he has exhausted the domestic remedies on this point within the . meaning of Article 26 of the Convention . On the question whether the Innsbruck Assize Court could be considered an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that in the present case, the Supreme Court, after a careful examination, held that there were no reasons to justify the exclusion of the foreman of the jury on account of his connections with the Tyrol tourist organisation . The Commission then notes that under Austrian law the applicant was unanimously found guilty by a jury consisting of eight persons . Furethermore, the questions relating to the accused's guilt which the jury were required to answer were put by the three professional judges . Finally, the sentence was decided .by the same jury and by the three professional judges making up the court . The mere fact that the travel agency where the hold-up took place belonged to the organisation which employed the foreman of the jury certainly does not lead to the conclusion that the Assize Court was not impartial . An examination of this complaint by the Commission, as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in particular of the above mentioned provision . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
,:~:~%p~ `~ â¢~Ei' .-~ $ ~
..` -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/03/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page