Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19760705-682174
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 13:09:31+00:00
Document Index: 292168490

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 8", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 26", "l'article 31", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 5', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2', '§ 5']

HUBER c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche HUBER c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6821/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-07-05;6821.74 Analyses : (Art. 10-1) LIBERTE D'EXPRESSION, (Art. 10-2) DEFENSE DE L'ORDRE, (Art. 10-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 10-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 10-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 17) DESTRUCTION DES DROITS ET LIBERTES, (Art. 18) RESTRICTIONS DANS UN BUT NON PREVU, (Art. 5-1) ARRESTATION OU DETENTION REGULIERE, (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) JUGEMENT PUBLIC, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL IMPARTIAL, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL INDEPENDANT, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCE, (Art. 6-3-b) FACILITES NECESSAIRES, (Art. 6-3-b) TEMPS NECESSAIRE, (Art. 6-3-c) SE DEFENDRE SOI-MEME, (Art. 6-3-d) INTERROGATION DES TEMOINSParties : Demandeurs : HUBERDéfendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/ REQU ETES NÂ° 6621/74 Herbe rt HUBER v/AUSTRIA Herbe rt HUBER c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 5 July 1976 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 5 juillet 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃt e
Article 5 of the Convention an d Article 26 of the Convention : Six months period. Can the Commission, without infringing the six months rule, examine an application concerning the compatibility of a detention with Article 5, paragraphs 1-4, of the Convention, when the only final domestic decision of less than six months is a decision rejecting a plea for damages for an allegedly i/legat detention )( unresolved) Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention : a . The compensation provided for in this Article covers both material and moral damage .
b . When a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 1-4 has been established either formally a substantively by a domestic court, the Commission can examine an application based on Article 5, paragraph 5, provided domestic remedies have been exhausted (new jurisprudence) . Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Convention an d Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention : ManifestN ill-founded. When the Commission declares an application based on Article 5, paragraphs 1-4 of the Convention inadmissible as man/fesNY ill-founded, it shall declare the complaint under Article 5, paragraph 5 inadmissible for the same reason .
Article 5 de la Convention e t Article 26 de la Convention : DÃ©lai de six mois . La Commission peut-elle, sans enfreindre la rÃ©gle du dÃ©lai de six mois, Ãªtre saisie d'une requÃªte concernant la compatibilitÃ© d'une dÃ©tention avec l'article 5, paregraphes 1 Ã© 4, de la Convention, lorsque fa seule dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive datant de moins de six mois est une dÃ©cision rejetant une demande de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour dÃ©tention prÃ©tendument illicite l(Duestion non rÃ©solue) . Article 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention : a . La rÃ©paration visÃ©e Ã© cet article est celle du dommage matÃ©riel et du tort moral . b . Lorsqu'une violation de l'article 5, paragraphes 1 Ã 4, a Ã©tÃ© constatÃ©e formellement ou en substance par un tribunal national, la Commission peut Ãªtre saisie d'une requÃ©te fondÃ©e sur l'article 5, paragraphe 5, sous rÃ©serve de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes. (Nouvelle jurisprudence )
Article 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention e t Article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : DÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . Lorsque la Commission dÃ©clare irrecevable pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement une requÃªte /ondÃ©e sur l'article 5, paragraphes 1 B 4, de la Convention, elle dÃ©clare irrecevable pour le mÃªme motif le grief tirÃ© de l'article 5, paragraphe 5 .
( lrencais . voirp . 71 )
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant is an Austrian citizen born in 1914 and resident in Vienna . He has lodged with the Commission two previous applications relating to criminal proceedings against him (No . 4517/70 - Report adopted on 7 .2 .73 - published in DR 2, p . 11-50 ; No . 5523/72 - Decision on admissibility of 4 and 5 .10 .74, Coll . 46, p . 99) . He is represented by Mr Schaller, a lawyer practising in Vienna . The following is an outline of the relevant facts of the present application . 1 . In February 1959, the Vienna Internal Revenue Office started enquiries into the applicant's business transactions on the suspicion of having wrongly received turnover tax refunds . In the course of these enquiries the applicant's premises were visited and books of his company were handed over to the investigators . When it turned out that the alleged manipulations exceeded a certain sum, the matter was transferred in August 1959 to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Vienna . On 11 August 1959, the Public Prosecutor made an application to the Regional Criminal Court for the opening of preliminary investigations against the applicant and several others for having improperly obtained turnover tax refunds for the sham export of textiles and optical instruments . He further requested the Court to authorise the arrest of the said persons . On 17 August 1959 the investigating judge at the Regional Criminal Court, Mr Leonhard, took a decision in accordance with the prosecuting authority's application to open preliminary investigations against the applicant . He further issued a warrant of arrest but ordered that it should be kept in the file and not fonvarded at the time (vorlSufig beim Akt zu belassen und nicht abzufertigen) . The applicant apparently left Austria in December 1960 . In any event, on 10 February 1961, the investigating judge made an order to search (Steckbrief) for the applicant . According to that order, the applicant was to be arrested because he was strongly suspected of having committed fraud . This order generally referred to the export of goods in the years 1952-57 and false declarations to the customs by which Huber and RafaÃ«l had obtained turnover tax refunds . Special reference was made to the export of running gear . The applicant was arrested in Zurich on 13 February 1961 . On 21 February 1961 the investigating judge issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest (Haftbefehl) on the ground that he was suspected of having been an accomplice in an offence of misuse of official powers (Missbrauch der Amtsgewalt) within the meaning of Arts . 5 and 101 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetz), and of having committed fraud within the meaning of Arts . 197, 200 and 203 of the Criminal Code . The
judge considered the fraud to consist in the obtaining of turnover tax refunds with regard to the sham export of certain running gear and the misuse of power in the a attempt to bribe the competent tax officer of Salzburg . On 23 February 1961 the Austrian authorities made an application to the Swiss Government for the applicant's extradition . On 28 February 1961, the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office moved the Regional Criminal Court to extend the preliminary investigations against the applicant to cover also the alleged fraud with regard to turnover tax refunds for the sham export of gym shoes, mole-skins and running gear, and the suspicion of having been involved in the misuse of official powers as being an accomplice . The Court took a decision in accordance with the Prosecutor's request on 1 March 1961 . On 12 May 1961 the applicant made an application to the investigating judge to set aside the warrant for his arrest . This was rejected on 31 May 1961, but before this decision was taken the applicant, on 26 May 1961, had been released from detention in Switzerland because of his poor health . On 22 and 29 June the applicant made further applications to set aside the warrant of arrest which were rejected by the Judges' Chamber of the Regional Court in Vienna (Ratskammer der Landgerichte) on 26 July and 14 September 1961 respectively . On 18 September 1961 the applicant challenged the latter decision on appeal to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) in Vienna which dismissed the appeal on 20 October 1961 on the ground that the detention was still necessary to prevent the applicant fleeing .
On 26 October 1961, the Swiss Authorities were given more information about the facts underlying the charges brought against the applicant . The applicant was then again arrested in Switzerland on 23 January 1962 but released once more on grounds of his poor health . On 27 September 1962 he was extradited to Austria and remanded in custody at the Vienna Regional Court Hospital . He was then heard on several occasions by the investigating judge . On 15 October 1962 he made a further application for release which was refused by the Regional Court's Judges' Chamber on 16 October 1962, and his appeal to the Vienna Court of Appeal was dismissed on 10 December 1962 . Indeed, on 22 October 1962, the investigating judge issued a supplementary warrant of arrest under which the applicant was suspected of having committed fraud (Arts . 197 and 200 of the Criminal Code) in connection with the alleged improper obtaining of turnover tax refunds for the sham export of optical instruments, cotton materials, and again gym-shoes, mole-skins and ladies' blouses and also of defamation as well as having aided and abetted this offence (Art . 5 and 209 of the Criminal Code) . Following various requests for mutual assistance to the authorities of several countries, the preliminary investigations were closed on 4 November 1963 . The indictment was filed with the Regional Criminal Court in Vienna on 17 March 1964 . It contained altogether ten charges against the applicant . Proceedings were later discontinued in respect of five charges in March 1966 . Three other charges were severed in March 1966 and June 1968 . After severance of a last charge on 2 July 1968, the Regional Criminal Court convicted the applicant of fraud with regard to the improper obtaining of turnover tax refunds for the sham export of running gears and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment . The applicant had been released from detention on remand on 7 July 1965 . This detention on remand was fully credited towards the sentence . -67-
II . On 16 December 1971, the applicant brought against the Austrian State, represented by the Finanzprokuratur, a claim for damages based on Section 8 of the Public Responsibility Act (Amtshaftungsgesetz), for his allegedly unlawful detention in the years 1961 -65 . The Finanzprokuratur having failed to take position concerning that claim within the prescribed period of three months, the matter was referred to the Regional Court on 14 April 1972 . The claim was dismissed by that Court of Appeal in Graz on 18 December 1973 . A further appeal (Revision) was rejected by the Supreme Court on 29 March 1974 . Summary of the applicant's submissions to the Austrian courts : The applicant first recalled that he had spent the following periods in detention on remand : - from 13 .2 .61 to 26 .5 .61 Idetention pending extradition) - from 23 .1 .62 to 16 .3 .62 (detention pending extradition) - from 27 .9 .62 to 7 .7 .65 (detention on remand in Vienna) . He alleged that this detention had been unlawful and only due to a"criminal behaviour" of State authorities : a. The order to search (Steckbrief) issued by the investigating judge on 10 .2 .61 indicated that the applicant was under the suspicion of having committed fraud in respect of facts (export of running gear) for which, at the material time, no preliminary investigations had been opened . The public prosecutor had not even made an application for the opening of such investigations . The investigating judge had thereby acted in breach of Section 2 of the code of criminal procedure . The applicant's arrest and detention were therefore unlawful . b . The Austrian Authorities had abusively requested his extradition in presenting the facts adduced in support of the claim for extradition as constituting a criminal offence and thus an extraditable act, while they constituted a fiscal offence and no extraditable act under the Swiss-Austrian Treaty of 1898 . The extradition and the subsequent detention had, under these circumstances, been unlawfully requested and imposed . Both arguments were rejected by the courts, along the following line s a . At the time of the applicant's arrest, there was a decision of 17 .8 .59 by the investigating judge to open prelimina ry investigations against Mr Huber in respect of similar facts of fraudulently obtaining turnover tax refunds . A warrant of arrest had been issued though not executed . There was therefore ample ground for the applicant's arrest . Fu rt hermore, the investigating judge's error ( Formalversehen) had been quickly redressed by the Regional Court's decision of 1 March 1961 to extend the prelimina ry investigations to cover also the alleged fraud with regard to the turnover tax refunds for the sham expo rt of running gear . The applicant was later convicted in this respect . b. The applicant had commi tted the said offence with particular trickery (mit besonderer Arglistigkeit) ; the abusive applications for tax refunds under the fiscal legislation could therefore be rightly seen as constitutive of fraud under the criminal law . But even if the authorities had wrongly treated the ma tt er as a criminal offence in their request for extradition, such a legal characterisation of the acts was a defen sible one . The possible error by the authorities could therefore not serve as a basis for a claim for compensation under the Public Responsibility Act .
The courts further observed that, where the alleged misconduct does not constitute a crime, the claim is prescribed within three years . The applicant was therefore barred from lodging any claim for compensation . The courts finally drew attention to the fact that the time in detention on remand had been fully credited towards the sentence . Ill . Comp/aints : The applicant complains that he was not granted compensation for damages caused by his detention . In this respect, he alleged a breach of Art . 5 (5) of the Convention . Since the detention had been unlawfully ordered, in breach of the Code of criminal procedure and the Swiss-Austrian Extradition Treaty, and unduly prolonged, he was entitled to get proper compensation . THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains that he was not given compensation for the material and moral damages sustained as a result of a detention which, he alleges, was contrary to para 11) and (3) of Article 5 . In this respect he invokes Article 5 para (5) . This clause provides that "everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation" . This right to compensation does indeed cover material and moral damages . It is, however, plainly conditioned on a breach of one of the paragraphs of Article 5 . The Commission is therefore first confronted with the two-fold question : how is such a breach to be found, and whether it has been or could be found in the present case .
2. The Commission has held in the past that it could not consider the applicant's claim under Article 5 para (5) before : 1 . The competent organ, namely the Court or the Committee of Ministers, has given a decision on the question whether Article 5, paragraph (3), has been violated in the present case ; an d 2 . the applicant has had the opportunity, with respect to his claim for compensation to exhaust, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, the domestic remedies available to him . . . (cf . para 76 of the Art . 31 Report of the Commission with regard to Application No . 2122/64, Wemhoff v . the Federal Republic of Germany and decisions on admissibility of applications No . 4149/69, Coll 36 p . 66, and 5560/70, Coll . 45 p . 59 ) In the circumstances of this case, however, neither of the above two organs have been called upon to decide whether the periods of the applicant's detention on remand violated the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention . 3 . On further consideration the Commission would be inclined partially to revise or develop its earlier jurisprudence and consider that where a breach of para 111-141 has been established by a national court-either directly if the said provisions form part of the domestic law concerned or in substance-the applicant who has been denied compensation can bring before the Commission a breach of Art 5 para (5), after exhaustion of domestic remedies in this respect . Room for such an interpretation was already left in the Commission's decision on the admissibility of a previous application presented by the applicant partly on the basis of the same facts, new developments having taken place in the meanwhile .In that decision lapplication No . 4517/70, Coll . 38 _gy -
p . 901, the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints under Art . 5111(c) for noncompliance with the six months' rule laid down in Article 26 of the Convention . However, it did not reject the further complaint under Art . 5 para . (5) as being incompatible ratione materiae but stressed that the applicant had failed to petition the Austrian judicial authorities in this respect . Now the applicant has unsuccessfully claimed compensation under the Public Responsibility Act . A careful examination of the court decisions, however, indicates that no breach of paras . (1)-(4) of Article 5 has been established, even in substance . The substantive conditions for imprisonment contemplated by Article 5111(c) have been met . In spite of a technical error (Formalversehen) which was quickly redressed, the applicant has been, in the judges' opinion, lawfully detained on the reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence .
The Commission is therefore prevented from dealing with the applicant's separate complaint based on Article 5, para . (5) of the Convention, which, as presented to the Commission, is incompatible ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 121 of the Convention . 4 . The Commission then examined whether it should nevertheless consider itself as being seized of an application under Article 5 as a whole and, after the decision of the Supreme Court of 29 March 1974, proceed to a new examination of the applicant's original complaint concerning the lawfulness of his detention, which had been declared inadmissible on 19 December 1970 for non-compliance with the six-months' rule . The Commission decided that it could leave open in the present case the question whether such an examination of facts and decisions from the period 1961-1965 would conflict with the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention and in particular with the sixmonths' rule designed "to prevent the past judgments being constantly called into question" (cf . para . 136 of the Commission's Report in the De Becker case No . 219/56) . The application is in fact inadmissible on other grounds . In effect, part of the applicant's detention occurred in Switzerland prior to the ratification of the Convention by that State . Insofar as the application would be directed against Switzerland, it would thus be outside the competence ratione temporis of the Commission . In this context, the Commission fails to see the relevance of the applicant's submissions that his arrest and extradition were fraudulently requested by the Austrian authorities ; it was for the Swiss authorities to ensure whether the set of facts underlying the offence charged constituted a valid basis for extradition . The Commission further observes that, after his surrender, the applicant was detained in conformity with Article 51111c1 on the reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and in accordance with the law . On several occasions the lawfulness of the detention was decided upon or reviewed by courts which found it necessary to prevent the applicant from absconding . Even assuming that the applicant's complaints concerning the lawfulness of his detention, considered ex officio under Article 5 111, should not be declared inadmissible under Article 26, they are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . The Commission cannot therefore receive the separate claim made under Article 5(5 ) , which is also manifestly ill-founded (cf . decision of 19 December 1974 on the admissibility of applicatiori No, 5869 /72 v . Norway, Decisions and Reports 2, p . 52) . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant autrichien nÃ© en 1914 et domiciliÃ© Ã Vienne . Il a prÃ©cÃ©demment introduit auprÃ¨s de la Commission deux requÃªtes relatives Ã une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre lui (NÂ° 4517/70 - rapport adoptÃ© le 7 fÃ©vrier 1973 publiÃ© dans le DR 2, pp . 11-50 ; NÂ° 5523/72 - dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des 4 et 5 octobre 1974, Recueil 46, p . 99) . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© par M . Schaller, avocat Ã Vienne . On trouvera ci-aprÃ¨s un rÃ©sumÃ© des faits peninents de la prÃ©sente requÃªte . En fÃ©vrier 1959, la recette-perception de Vienne a entrepris une enquÃªte sur les 1. transactions commerciales du requÃ©rant, soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir Ã©tÃ© indÃ»ment remboursÃ© de l'impift sur le chiffre d'affaires . Au cours de ces enquÃªtes, les locaux appartenant au requÃ©rant ont Ã©tÃ© perquisitionnÃ©s et les livres comptables de sa sociÃ©tÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© remis aux enquÃ©teurs . Lorsqu'il s'est avÃ©rÃ© que les malversations allÃ©guÃ©es dÃ©passaient une certaine somme, la question a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e, en aoÃ¹t 1959, au parquet de Vienne . Le 11 aoÃ»t 1959, le chef du parquet a demandÃ© au tribunal pÃ©nal rÃ©gional d'ouvrir une instruction prÃ©paratoire Ã l'encontre du requÃ©rant et plusieurs autres personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'avoir frauduleusement obtenu un remboursement de l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'affaires pour la prÃ©tendue exportation de textiles et d'instruments d'optique . Il a en outre demandÃ© au tribunal d'autoriser l'arrestation desdites personnes . Le 17 aoÃ»t 1959, le juge d'instruction du tribunal pÃ©nal rÃ©gional, M . Leonhard, a pris, conformÃ©ment Ã la demande du parquet, la dÃ©cision d'ouvrir une instruction prÃ©paratoire Ã l'encontre du requÃ©rant . Il a en outre dÃ©cernÃ© un mandat d'arrÃ©t mais ordonnÃ© qu'il fOt conservÃ© dans le dossier et non transmis Ã ce moment-lÃ© IvorlÃ¯ufig beim Akt aufbelassen und nicht abzufertigen) . Le requÃ©rant a apparemment quittÃ© l'Autriche en dÃ©cembre 1960 . Quoi qu'il en soit, le 10 fÃ©vrier 1961, le juge d'instruction a lancÃ© un avis de recherche (Steckbrief) du requÃ©rant .
Selon cet avis, le requÃ©rant devait Ã©tre arr0tÃ© car il Ã©tait fortement soupÃ§onnÃ© d'escroquerie . D'une maniÃ©re gÃ©nÃ©rale, cet avis mentionnait l'exportation de marchandises au cours des annÃ©es 1952-1957 et de fausses dÃ©clarations aux douanes, qui auraient permis Ã Huber et RafaÃ©l de se faire rembourser l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'affaires . Il citait en particulier de l'exportation d'engrenages . Le 21 fÃ©vrier 1961, le juge d'instruction a lancÃ© un mandat d'arrÃªt contre le requÃ©rant (Haftbefehl) au motif qu'il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© de complicitÃ© de dÃ©lit d'abus d'autoritÃ© (Missbrauch der Amtsgewalt) au sens des articles 5 et 101 du Code pÃ©nal (Strafgesetz) et d'escroquerie au sens des articles 197, 200 et 203 du Code pÃ©nal . Selon le juge, l'escroquerie consistait en l'obtention de remboursements de l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'affaires pour l'exportation fictive de certains engrenages et l'abus de pouvoir consistait en une tentative de corruption du fonctionnaire compÃ©tent des services fiscaux de Salzbourg . Le 23 fÃ©vrier 1961 les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes ont demandÃ© au Gouvernemen t suisse l'extradition du requÃ©rant . Le 28 fÃ©vrier 1961, le parquet de Vienne a demandÃ© au tribunal rÃ©gional d'Ã©tendre l'instruction prÃ©paratoire Ã des soupÃ§ons d'escroquerie consistant Ã avoir obtenu de s
remboursements d'impÃ´t Ã l'occasion de l'exportation fictive de chaussures de gymnastique, de velours de coton et d'engrenages ainsi qu'8 des soupÃ§ons de complicitÃ© d'abus de pouvoir . Le 1^ , mars 1961, le tribunal a fait droit Ã la demande du ministÃ©re public . Le 12 mai 1961, le requÃ©rant a requis du juge d'instruction l'annulation du mandat d'arrÃ©t . Celle-ci fut refusÃ©e le 31 mai 1961, mais avant cette dÃ©cision, le 26 mai 1961, le requÃ©rant, en raison de son Ã©tat de santÃ©, avait Ã©tÃ© Ã©largi par les autoritÃ©s suisses .
Les 22 et 29 juin 1961, le requÃ©rant a soumis d'autres requites en annulation du mandat d'arrÃªt, qui ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es par la chambre du conseil du tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne (Ratskammer des Landesgerichts) les 26 juillet et 14 septembre 1961 respectivement . Le 18 septembre 1961, le requÃ©rant a recouru contre cette dÃ©cision devant la cour d'appel (Oberlandesgericht) de Vienne, qui rejeta ce recours le 20 octobre 1961 au motif que la dÃ©tention Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire pour empÃªcher que le requÃ©rant ne prit la fuite . Le 26 octobre 1961, les autoritÃ©s suisses ont reÃ§u de nouvelles informations sur les faits Ã la base des accusations portÃ©es contre le requÃ©rant . Le requÃ©rant fut Ã nouveau arrÃ©tÃ© en Suisse le 23 janvier 1962, puis remis en libertÃ© pour raisons de santÃ© . Reconduit en Autriche le 27 septembre 1962, il a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive Ã l'hÃ´pital attachÃ© au tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne . Il a Ã©tÃ© entendu par le juge d'instruction Ã plusieurs reprises . Il a dÃ©posÃ© le 15 octobre 1962 une nouvelle demande de mise en libertÃ©, qui a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e par la chambre du conseil du tribunal rÃ©gional le 16 octobre 1962 . Son recours contre cette dÃ©cision devant la cour d'appel de Vienne a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© le 10 dÃ©cembre 1962 . En outre, le 22 octobre 1962, le juge d'instruction dÃ©cernait un nouveau mandat d'arrÃ©t aux termes duquel le requÃ©rant Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© d'escroquerie (articles 197 et 200 du Code pÃ©nal) consistant en l'obtention illÃ©gitime de remboursements de l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'affaires pour l'exportation fictive d'instruments d'optique, de cotonnades et Ã nouveau de chaussures de gymnastique, de velours de coton et de blouses de dames, ainsi que de diffamation et de complicitÃ© de diffamation (articles 5 et 209 du Code pÃ©nall . AprÃ©s plusieurs demandes d'entraide judiciaire adressÃ©es aux autoritÃ©s de divers pays, la clÃ´ture de l'instruction prÃ©paratoire a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e le 4 novembre 1963 . L'acte d'accusation a Ã©tÃ© transmis au tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne le 17 mars 1964 . II contenait au total dix accusations contre le requÃ©rant . Les poursuites devaient Ã©tre abandonnÃ©es en mars 1966 quant Ã cinq accusations . Trois autres chefs d'accusation ont Ã©tÃ© disjoints en mars 1966 et juin 1968 . AprÃ©s la disjonction d'un dernier chef d'accusation, le 2 juillet 1968, le tribunal pÃ©nal rÃ©gional a reconnu le requÃ©rant coupable d'escroquerie consistant Ã avoir irrÃ©guliÃ¨rement obtenu des remboursements de l'impdts sur le chiffre d'affaires Ã l'occasion de l'exportation fictive d'engrenages et il l'a condamnÃ© Ã trois ans de prison . La dÃ©tention provisoire du requÃ©rant avait pris fins le 7 juillet 1965 . La durÃ©e totale de cette dAtention provisoire a Ã©tÃ© imputÃ©e sur la peine .
Le 16 dÃ©cembre 1971, le requÃ©rant a introduit contre l'Etat autrichien, reprÃ©sentÃ© Il . par le Service du contentieux de l'Etat (Finanzprokuratur), une action en dommagesintÃ©rÃ©ts invoquant l'article 8 de la loi sur la responsabilitÃ© administrative IAmtshaftungsgesetzl, pour sa dÃ©tention prÃ©tendument irrÃ©guliÃ¨re de 1961 Ã 1965 . La Finanzprokuratur n'ayant pas pris position au sujet de cette action dans le dÃ©lai de trois mois qui lui Ã©tait imparti, la question a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e au tribunal rÃ©gional le 14 avril 1972 . L a
plainte a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e par la cour d'appel de Graz le 18 dÃ©cembre 1973 . Un nouveau recours (Revision) a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© par la Cour suprÃªme le 29 mars 1974 . RÃ©sumÃ© de l'argumentation du requÃ©rant devant les tribunaux autrichien sLer quÃ©rantad' bord ap elÃ©qu'ilap s Ã©lespÃ©riodes uivantes ndÃ©tenio n provisoire :
- du 13 .2 .61 au 26 .5 .61 IdÃ©tention avant extradition) - du 23 .1 .62 au 16 .3 .62 ( dÃ©tention avant extradition ) - du 27 .9 .62 au 7 .7 .75 IdÃ©tention provisoire Ã Vienne) . Il a allÃ©guÃ© que sa dÃ©tention Ã©tait irrÃ©guliÃ©re et n'Ã©tait imputable qu'Ã© un Â« compo rt ement criminel Â» des autoritÃ©s de l'Etat : a . L'avis de recherche ( Steckbrief) lancÃ© par le juge d'instruction le 10 fÃ©vrier 1961 aurait indiquÃ© que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© d'escroquerie consistant en des faits (expo rt ation d'engrenages) pour lesquels, Ã l'Ã©poque en question, aucune instruction prÃ©paratoire n'aurait Ã©tÃ© ouverte . Le chef du parquet n'aurait pas mÃ©me demandÃ© l'ouve rt ure d'une telle instruction . Le juge d'instruction aurait donc agi en violation de l'anicle 2 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . L'arrestation et la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant auraient donc Ã©tÃ© irrÃ©guliÃ©res .
b . Les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes auraient abusivement demandÃ© son extradition en prÃ©sentant les Ã©lÃ©ments produits Ã l'appui de la demande d'extradition comme constituant une infraction pÃ©nale, donc un acte pouvant donner lieu Ã extradition, alors qu'il se serait agi d'une infraction fiscale et non d'un acte pouvant entraPner l'extradition au regard du traitÃ© austro-suisse de 1898 . L'extradition et la dÃ©tention ultÃ©rieure auraient donc Ã©tÃ© irrÃ©guliÃ©rement demandÃ©es et imposÃ©es .
Les tribunaux ont rejetÃ© ces deux arguments aux motifs suivants a . Au moment de l'arrestation du requÃ©rant, le juge d'instruction aurait pris la dÃ©cision, le 17 aoÃ»t 1959, d'ouvrir une instruction prÃ©paratoire contre M . Huber Ã propos de faits analogues consistant A obtenir frauduleusement le remboursement de l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'a ff aires . Un mandat d'arrÃªt aurait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cernÃ©, encore que non mis Ã exÃ©cution . L'arrestation du requÃ©rant aurait donc Ã© tÃ© amplement justifiÃ©e . En outre, l'erreur du juge d'instruction ( Formalve rsehen) aurait Ã© tÃ© rapidement redressÃ©e par la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional du 1 - mars 1961 d'Ã©tendre l'instruction prÃ©paratoire Ã l'escroquerie probable consistant en l'obtention du remboursement de l'impÃ´t sur le chiffre d'affaires pour l'expo rtation fictive d'engrenages . Le requÃ©rant aurait Ã© tÃ© condamnÃ© ultÃ©rieurment de ce chef .
b . Le requÃ©rant aurait commis ladite infraction d'une maniÃ©re pa rt iculiÃ©rement dolosive Imit besonderer Arglistigkeit) ; les demandes abusives de remboursement de l'impÃ´t en ve rt u de la lÃ©gislation fiscale auraient donc pu Ã juste titre Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme constituant une escroquerie au regard du droit pÃ©nal . A supposer mÃªme que les autoritÃ©s aient traitÃ© Ã to rt la question comme une infraction pÃ©nale dans leur demande d'extradition, ce tte classification juridique des actes incriminÃ©s se dÃ©fenderait . L'erreur que les autoritÃ©s avaient pu commettre ne pourrait donc constituer la base d'une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts en ve rtu de la loi sur la responsabilitÃ© administrative . Les tribunaux ont relevÃ© en outre que, dans le cas oÃ¹ les prÃ©tendus mÃ©faits ne constituent pas une infraction pÃ©nale, l'action se prescrit par trois ans . Le requÃ©rant aurait donc Ã© tÃ© forclos pour introduire une action en dommages-intÃ©rr'ts .
Les tribunaux ont enfin fait remarquer que la durÃ©e totale de la dÃ©tention provi soire avait Ã©tÃ© imputÃ©e sur la peine .
Ill . Griefs Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© dÃ©dommagÃ© du prÃ©judice causÃ© par sa dÃ©tention . A cet Ã©gard, il a allÃ©guÃ© une violation de l'article 5, Â§ 5 de la Convention . Selon lui, la dÃ©tention ayant Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©e irrÃ©guliÃ©rement, en violation du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale et du traitÃ© austro-suisse d'extradition, et indÃ¹ment prolongÃ©e, il aurait Ã©tÃ© en droit d'obtenir un dÃ©dommagement appropriÃ© .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© dÃ©dommagÃ© du prÃ©judice matÃ©riel et moral dÃ» Ã une dÃ©tention qui, selon lui, Ã©tait contraire aux paragraphes 1 et 3 de l'article 5 . II invoque Ã ce propos l'article 5, Â§ 5, aux termes duquel Â« toute personne victime d'une arrestation ou d'une dÃ©tention dans des conditions contraires aux dispositions de cet article a droit Ã rÃ©paration Â» . Ce droit Ã rÃ©paration couvre effectivement le prÃ©judice matÃ©riel et moral . Toutefois, il dÃ©pend entiÃ©rement de la violation de l'un des paragraphes de l'article 5 . La Commission se trouve donc d'abord confrontÃ©e Ã la double question suivante : comment une telle violation doit-elle Ptre constatÃ©e, et : celle-ci a-t-elle Ã©tÃ© ou pourra-t-elle Ã©tre constatÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce .
2 . La Commission a estimÃ© dans le passÃ© qu'elle ne pouvait pas examiner la demande que le requÃ©rant a formulÃ©e en s'appuyant sur l'article 5, Â§ 5 : 1 . avant que l'organe compÃ©tent, c'est-Ã -dire la Cour ou le ComitÃ© des Ministres, se soit prononcÃ© sur la question de savoir si l'article 5, Â§ 3 a Ã©tÃ© violÃ©, en l'occurrence ; et 2 . avant que le requÃ©rant ait pu, en ce qui concerne sa demande de rÃ©paration, Ã©puiser, conformÃ©ment aux dispositions de l'article 26 de la Convention, les voies de recours internes qui lui sont ouvertes . . . Â» Icf . paragraphe 76 du rapport de la Commission Ã©tabli conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 31 sur la requÃªte NÂ° 2122/64, Wemhoff contre RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 4149/69, Recueil 36, p . 66 et NÂ° 5560/70, Recueil 45, p . 59) . Dans les circonstances de l'espÃ©ce cependant, aucun des deux organes prÃ©citÃ©s n'a Ã©tÃ© appelÃ© Ã dire si la durÃ©e des dÃ©tentions provisoires du requÃ©rant Ã©tait contraire aux dispositions de l'article 5 de la Convention . 3 . AprÃ©s nouvel examen, la Commission serait encline Ã revoir ou Ã nuancer partiellement sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure et Ã admettre que, dans le cas oÃ¹ un manquement aux paragraphes 1-4 a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli par un tribunal national - soit directement, si lesdites dispositions font partie du droit interne, soit en substance - le requÃ©rant qui s'est vu refuser rÃ©paration peut saisir la Commission d'un manquement Ã l'article 5, Â§ 5 aprÃ©s Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes Ã cet Ã©gard . La possibilitÃ© d'une telle interprÃ©tation existait dÃ©jÃ dans la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© d'une prÃ©cÃ©dente requPte introduite par le requÃ©rant en partie sur la base des mÃ©mes faits, de nouveaux Ã©vÃ©nements ayant eu lieu entre temps . Dans cette dÃ©cision (requÃªte NÂ° 4517/70, Recueil 38, p . 90), la Commission a rejetÃ© les griefs du requÃ©rant au titre de l'article 5, 4 1 c) pour inobservation de la rÃ©gle de six mois contenue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . Cependant, elle n'a pas rejetÃ© l'autre grief ,
tirÃ© de l'article 5, Â§ 5, comme Ã©tant incompatible ratione materiae avec tes dispositions de la Convention mais elle a relevÃ© que le requÃ©rant avait omis de saisir les autoritÃ©s judiciaires autrichiennes de cette question . Or le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© en vain rÃ©paration en vertu de la loi sur la responsabilitÃ© administrative . Un examen minutieux des dÃ©cisions judiciaires indique cependant qu'aucune violation des paragraphes 1 Ã 4 de l'article 5 n'a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablie, pas mÃªme en substance . Les conditions substantielles de l'incarcÃ©ration prÃ©vues par-l'article 5, Â§ 1 c) ont Ã©tÃ© remplies . MalgrÃ© une erreur technique (Formalversehen) qui a Ã©tÃ© rapidement redressÃ©e, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ©, selon les juges, rÃ©guliÃ©rement dÃ©tenu parce que raisonnablement soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir commis une infraction .
La Commission ne peut donc connaitre de la plainte distincte du requÃ©rant invoquant l'article 5, Â§ 5 de la Convention qui, telle qu'elle lui est prÃ©sentÃ©e, est incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de celle-ci . 4 . La Commission a ensuite examinÃ© si elle n'en pourrait pas moins se considÃ©rer comme saisie d'une requÃªte au titre de l'article 5 dans son ensemble et, aprÃ¨s la dÃ©cision de la Cour suprÃ©me du 29 mars 1974 . procÃ©der Ã un nouvel examen de la plainte initiale du requÃ©rant concernant la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention, plainte qui a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable le 19 dÃ©cembre 1970 pour inobservation de la rÃ¨gle des six mois . La Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© qu'elle pouvait laisser ouve rt e, en l'espÃ¨ce, la question de savoir si un tel examen des faits et des dÃ©cisions de la pÃ©riode 1961-1965 contreviendrait aux exigences de l'a rt icle 26 de la Convention et en pa rt iculier Ã la rÃ©gle des six mois, destinÃ©e Ã Â« empÃ©cher la constante remise en cause du passÃ© Â» (cf . paragraphe 136 du rappo rt de la Commission dans l'affaire De Becker NÂ° 219/56) . La requÃªte est en effet irrecevable pour d'autres motifs . Une pa rt ie de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant a eu lieu en Suisse avant que cet Etat n'ait ratifiÃ© la Convention . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ la requbte serait dirigÃ©e contre la Suisse, elle Ã©chapperait Ã la compÃ©tence ratione temporis de la Commission . A ce propos, la Commission ne voit pas la pe rt inence des arguments du requÃ©rant selon lesquels son arrestation et son extradition auraient Ã© tÃ© irrÃ©guliÃ©rement demandÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s autrichiennes ; c'est aux autoritÃ©s suisses qu'il appa rtenait de vÃ©rifier que l'ensemble des faits formant l'infraction dont le requÃ©rant Ã© tait accusÃ© constituait un motif valable d'extradition . La Commission relÃ©ve en outre qu'aprÃ¨s sa remise Ã l'Autriche, te requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu en conformitÃ© de l'a rt icle 5, Â§ 1 c) parce qu'il Ã©tait raisonnablement soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir commis une infraction et dÃ©tenu conformÃ©ment Ã la loi . A plusieurs reprises la rÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tention a Ã© tÃ© constatÃ©e ou revue par les tribunaux qui ont jugÃ© nÃ©cessaire d'empÃ©cher le requÃ©rant de prendre la fuite .
MÃªme Ã supposer que les griefs du requÃ©rant concernant la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention, examinÃ©s d'office sous l'angle de l'article 5, Â§ 1, ne doivent pas Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©s irrecevables en ve rtu de l'a rt icle 26, ils sont manifestement mal fondÃ©s au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2 de la Convention . La Commission ne peut donc pas dÃ©clarer recevable le grief distinct tirÃ© de l'a rt icle 5, Â§ 5, ce grief Ã©tant, lui aussi, manifestement mal fondÃ© ( cf . dÃ©cision du 19 dÃ©cembre 1974 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te NÂ° 5969/72 contre la NorvÃ©ge, DÃ©cisions et Rappo rts 2, p . 52) . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REQUETEIRRECEVABLE .
- 75 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/07/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page