Подборка материалов "Обзоры постановлений Европейского суда по правам человека"
19.03.2009
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LANG v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 28648/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 March 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in
Article 44 S: 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Lang v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vaji,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Sren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 28648/03) against the
Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") by an Austrian national, Mr Gerhard Lang ("the
applicant"), on 26 August 2003.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr R. Kohlhofer, a lawyer
practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government ("the Government") were
represented by their Agent, Mr F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the
International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and
International Affairs.
3. The applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against in
the exercise of his rights under Articles 4 and 9 of the Convention on
the ground of his religion as he was liable for military or
alternative civilian service whereas members of recognised religious
societies holding religious functions comparable to his functions were
exempted.
4. On 17 November 2005 the President of the First Section decided to
give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided
to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 S: 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Altmnster.
6. Upon his baptism on 30 July 1983 the applicant became a member of
the recognised religious community of the Jehovah's Witnesses in
Austria, within which he assumed the function of a preacher (Prediger)
and, since 6 November 1997, an elder (ltester) in the Jehovah's
Witnesses' community in Gmunden. This function includes providing
pastoral care to the community, leading church services and preaching.
7. In September 2000 the Upper Austrian Military Authority
(Militrkommando) ordered the applicant to undergo examinations as to
his ability to perform military service. The applicant appealed
against the order, claiming that he should be dispensed from military
service since he performed a function within the Jehovah's Witnesses
which was equivalent to that of members of a recognised religious
society who were exempt from military service under section 24(3) of
the Military Service Act (Wehrgesetz). To restrict such a privilege to
members of recognised religious societies was not objectively
justified and was therefore in breach of the Federal Constitution.
8. On 9 October 2000 the Upper Austria Military Authority dismissed
the applicant's appeal. On 14 December 2000 the Federal Minister for
Defence (Bundesminister fr Landesverteidigung) confirmed that
decision. Both authorities refused the applicant's appeals on the
ground that he did not belong to a recognised religious society.
9. Subsequently, on 25 January 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint
with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), requesting it
to repeal the wording "recognised religious societies" in section
24(3) of the Military Service Act.
10. On 25 September 2001 the Constitutional Court refused to deal
with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospects of success. It
found that the applicant's obligations under the Military Service Act
did not interfere with the internal rules and practices of the
religious community at issue. It furthermore referred to earlier
decisions dealing with the legal status of religious communities and
their difference from recognised religious societies under the
Recognition Act.
11. On 23 May 2003 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)
dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that exemption from the
obligation to perform military service merely applied to members of
recognised religious societies and could not be extended to members of
registered religious communities. This decision was served on the
applicant's counsel on 4 July 2003.
12. On 26 August 2003 the applicant asked the Federal Ministry for
Defence to take no action until the European Court of Human Rights had
decided on his application. The applicant was informed that an
instruction had been issued to the Upper Austrian Military Authority
not to call him up until further notice.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. The obligation to perform military or alternative service
13. Article 9 a S: 3 of the Federal Constitution reads as follows:
"Every male Austrian citizen is liable for military service.
Conscientious objectors who refuse to perform compulsory military
service and who are dispensed from this requirement must perform
alternative service. The details shall be regulated by ordinary law."
14. Section 24(3) of the Military Service Act, as in force at the
relevant time, read as follows:
"An exemption from the obligation to perform military service shall
apply to the following members of recognised religious societies:
1. ordained priests,
2. persons involved in spiritual welfare or in clerical teaching
after graduating in theological studies,
3. members of a religious order who have made a solemn vow, and
4. students of theology who are preparing to assume a clerical
function."
B. Religious societies and religious communities
15. For a detailed description of the legal situation in Austria in
this field see Lffelmann v. Austria (no. 42967/98).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER
WITH ARTICLE 9
16. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt
from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah's
Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised
religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted
discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article 14
of the Convention taken together with Article 9.
Article 14 of the Convention provides:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the]
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such
as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, association with a national minority,
property, birth or other status."
Article 9 provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject
only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the
protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others."
A. Admissibility
17. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
A. Submissions by the parties
18. The Government pointed out that Article 9 a S: 3 of the Federal
Constitution provided that every male Austrian citizen was liable to
perform military service. Exemptions from this obligation were set out
in section 24(3) and were linked to membership of a recognised
religious society. However, there were also further criteria which the
applicant did not satisfy either. The applicant had stated that his
function was comparable to those of persons who were involved in
spiritual welfare or in clerical teaching after graduating in
theological studies or who were preparing to assume such functions. In
this connection, the Government stressed that the applicant had not
stated at any time during the domestic proceedings that he had studied
theology at a university or any equivalent institution. Therefore,
notwithstanding his religious denomination, the applicant had failed
to prove that he complied with any of the four criteria set out in the
above-mentioned provision. Thus, there was no need to consider whether
or not the applicant had been discriminated against on the ground of
his faith. In addition, members of recognised religious societies who
did not comply with the criteria laid down in section 24(3) of the
Military Service Act were not exempt from military service.
19. The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States
were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military
service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military
or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under
Article 9 of the Convention.
20. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the
relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or
alternative civilian service, it should do so without any
discrimination.
21. While it was true that the Jehovah's Witnesses had neither
universities nor faculties within State or church universities, they
nonetheless offered intensive clerical training which consisted of
theoretical studies and practical experience. Elders and deacons were
in charge of spiritual welfare, guided the community's worship,
provided social assistance, celebrated mass, baptisms, marriages and
funerals, and supervised missionary work. The Religious Order of the
Jehovah's Witnesses had already existed for many decades and had about
160 members in Austria. Most of its members lived and worked in a
community of preachers who took part together in morning worship,
prayer and studies; other members were "special pioneers"
(Sonderpioniere) and "travelling overseers" ("episcopoi" or bishops)
who visited communities to perform missionary work and ensure
spiritual welfare. The Austrian authorities and courts only linked the
granting of an exemption from civilian service to membership of a
recognised religious society and did not examine whether or not the
person concerned performed comparable functions for the purposes of
section 24(3) of the Military Service Act.
B. The Court's assessment
22. As the Court has consistently held, Article 14 of the Convention
complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the
Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely
in relation to "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms" safeguarded
by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not
presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is
autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts
at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see,
among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands,
21 February 1997, S: 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I,
and Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, S: 34,
ECHR 2000-X).
23. Further, the freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 9
entails, inter alia, freedom to hold religious beliefs and to practise
a religion. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of
individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to
manifest one's religion, alone and in private, or in community with
others, in public and within the circle of those whose faith one
shares. Article 9 lists the various forms which manifestation of one's
religion or belief may take, namely worship, teaching, practice and
observance (see, as a recent authority, Leyla ahin v. Turkey [GC],
no. 44774/98, S:S: 104,105, ECHR 2005-XI, with further references).
24. In the Court's view the privilege at issue - namely the exemption
from the obligation to perform military service and also,
consequently, civilian service, afforded to religious societies in
respect of those who are part of their clergy - shows the significance
which the legislature attaches to the specific function these
representatives of religious groups fulfil within such groups in their
collective dimension. Observing that religious communities
traditionally exist in the form of organised structures, the Court has
repeatedly found that the autonomous existence of religious
communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and
is, thus, an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9
affords (see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, S: 62,
ECHR 2000-XI).
25. As the privilege at issue is intended to ensure the proper
functioning of religious groups in their collective dimension, and
thus promotes a goal protected by Article 9 of the Convention, the
exemption from military service granted to specific representatives of
religious societies comes within the scope of that provision. It
follows that Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 is
applicable in the instant case.
26. According to the Court's case-law, a difference of treatment is
discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention if it
"has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does
not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim
sought to be realised". The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin
of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in
otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see, among
other authorities, Willis v. United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, S: 39, ECHR
2002-IV).
27. In the instant case, the Court first observes that the exemption
from military service under section 24(3) of the Military Service Act
is exclusively linked to members of recognised religious societies
performing specific services of worship or religious instruction. The
applicant, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, claimed that he
performed similar services. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses was at
the time a registered religious community and not a religious society,
and there was thus no room for an exemption under the above-mentioned
legislation.
28. The Government argued that the applicant had not been
discriminated against, because the criterion that a person applying
for exemption from military service must be a member of a religious
society was only one condition among others and the applicant would
not, in any event, have fulfilled the further conditions as he had not
completed a course of theological studies at university or at a
comparable level of education. The Court is not persuaded by this
argument. Since the competent military authorities explicitly based
their refusal of the applicant's request on the ground that he did not
belong to a religious society, there is no need to speculate on what
the outcome would have been if the decisions had been based on other
grounds.
29. The Court has to examine whether the difference in treatment
between the applicant, who does not belong to a religious group which
is a religious society within the meaning of the 1874 Recognition Act,
and a person who belongs to such a group has an objective and
reasonable justification.
30. In doing so the Court refers to the case of Religionsgemeinschaft
der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria (no. 40825/98, 31 July 2008),
in which the first applicant, the Jehovah's Witnesses in Austria, had
been granted legal personality as a registered religious community, a
private-law entity, but wished to become a religious society under the
1874 Recognition Act - that is, a public-law entity. The Court
observed that under Austrian law, religious societies enjoyed
privileged treatment in many areas, including, inter alia, exemption
from military service and civilian service. Given the number of these
privileges and their nature, the advantage obtained by religious
societies was substantial. In view of these privileges accorded to
religious societies, the obligation under Article 9 of the Convention
incumbent on the State's authorities to remain neutral in the exercise
of their powers in this domain required therefore that if a State set
up a framework for conferring legal personality on religious groups to
which a specific status was linked, all religious groups which so
wished must have a fair opportunity to apply for this status and the
criteria established must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner
(ibid., S: 92). The Court found, however, that in the case of the
Jehovah's Witnesses one of the criteria for acceding to the privileged
status of a religious society had been applied in an arbitrary manner
and concluded that the difference in treatment was not based on any
"objective and reasonable justification". Accordingly, it found a
violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
Article 9 (ibid., S: 99).
31. In the present case, the refusal of exemption from military and
alternative civilian service was likewise based on the ground that the
applicant was not a member of a religious society within the meaning
of the 1874 Recognition Act. Given its above-mentioned findings in the
case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others, the Court
considers that in the present case the very same criterion - whether
or not a person applying for exemption from military service is a
member of a religious group which is constituted as a religious
society - cannot be understood differently and its application must
inevitably result in discrimination prohibited by the Convention.
32. In conclusion, section 24(3) of the Military Service Act, which
provides for exemptions from the obligation to perform military
service exclusively in the case of members of a recognised religious
society, is discriminatory and the applicant has been discriminated
against on the ground of his religion as a result of the application
of this provision. There has therefore been a violation of Article 14
taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
33. The applicant also relied on Article 9 of the Convention in
complaining that he was not exempt from military service, unlike
persons assuming a comparable function in religious communities
recognised as religious societies.
A. Admissibility
34. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
35. In the circumstances of the present case the Court considers that
in view of the considerations under Article 14 read in conjunction
with Article 9 of the Convention there is no separate issue under
Article 9 of the Convention alone.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER
WITH ARTICLE 4
36. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt
from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah's
Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised
religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted
discrimination on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article 14
of the Convention taken together with Article 4.
Article 4 S:S: 2 and 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
"2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. For the purpose of this article the term 'forced or compulsory
labour' shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention
imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of [the] Convention
or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious
objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted
instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity
threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic
obligations."
A. Admissibility
37. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
38. The Court considers that, in view of its finding under Article 14
read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention, there is no need
to examine this question also from the point of view of Article 14
read in conjunction with Article 4, all the more so as the core issue,
whether the difference in treatment may be based on the criterion of
"being a member of a religious society", has already been sufficiently
dealt with above.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
39. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention
that the Constitutional Court had not given a decision on the merits
of his complaint.
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention
are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by
persons acting in an official capacity."
Admissibility
40. The Court notes that Article 13 guarantees the availability of a
remedy at national level to enforce the substance of Convention rights
and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the
domestic legal order. Thus, its effect is to require the provision of
a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to
deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to
grant appropriate relief (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom,
nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, S: 135, ECHR 1999-VI). Article 13 does
not, however, presuppose that the remedy or remedies resorted to must
always be successful.
41. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant,
who was represented by counsel, had ample opportunity to challenge the
obligation to perform military service at three appellate levels,
including two levels of courts. The fact that in the present case the
Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant's complaint,
finding that it lacked sufficient prospects of success, does not lead
to the conclusion that a complaint to the Constitutional Court would
in itself not constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of
Article 13.
42. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention and must be rejected
in accordance with Article 35 S: 4.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
43. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention
or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High
Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made,
the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party."
A. Damage
44. The applicant did not submit a claim for damages. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that
account.
B. Costs and expenses
45. The applicant claimed 10,164.36 Euros (EUR), plus value-added tax
(VAT), for the costs of the domestic proceedings and EUR 3,964.80,
plus VAT, for the costs of the proceedings before the Court.
46. The Government argued that the costs claimed by the applicant
were excessive, in particular as in the proceedings before the
military authorities representation by a lawyer was not mandatory.
47. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, it has to
consider whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily
incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to
constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to
quantum. The Court considers that these conditions are met regards the
costs of the domestic proceedings. It therefore awards the full amount
claimed under this head, namely EUR 10,164.36, plus any tax that may
be chargeable to the applicant on this amount.
48. As regards the proceedings before the Court, the applicant, who
was represented by counsel, did not have the benefit of legal aid.
However, the Court agrees with the Government that the claim is
excessive. It notes in particular that the application was only partly
successful and was brought by the same lawyer who represented the
applicants in the similar cases of Lffelmann v. Austria (cited above)
and Gtl v. Austria (no. 49686/99). Making an assessment on an overall
basis, the Court awards EUR 2,500 under this head, plus any taxes that
may be chargeable to the applicant on this amount.
C. Default interest
49. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central
Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Declares unanimously admissible the applicant's complaints under
Article 4 S:S: 2 and 3 (b) and Article 9, both taken alone and in
conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that he was
discriminated against on account of his religion in respect of the
obligation to perform military service, and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds by six votes to one that there has been a violation of
Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 9 of
the Convention;
3. Holds unanimously that there is no separate issue under Article 9
of the Convention alone;
4. Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the
complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 4 S:S: 2
and 3 (b) of the Convention;
5. Holds unanimously
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance
with Article 44 S: 2 of the Convention, EUR 12,664.36 (twelve thousand
six hundred and sixty-four Euros and thirty-six cents), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 March 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 S:S: 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 S: 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 S: 2
of the Rules of Court, the following dissenting opinion is annexed to
this judgment:
- Dissenting opinion of Judge Vaji.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VAJI
1. I do not agree with the majority that there has been a violation
of the applicant's right under the Convention in the present case. In
my opinion the case should be distinguished from the cases Lffelmann
v. Austria (no.42967/98) and Gtl v. Austria (no. 49686/99), both
adopted today, and it should be struck out of the list of cases under
Article 37 S: 1 (b) of the Convention.
2. The applicant assumed the function of a preacher and an elder in
the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. He was called up to perform
military service, as the authorities found that exemption from the
obligation to perform military service applied only to members of
recognized religious societies and not to members of registered
religious communities such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. So far, the
applicant was in the same situation as the applicants in the Lffelmann
and Gtl cases, in which the Court unanimously found a violation of
Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention. However,
and contrary to the applicants in these two cases, on 26 August 2003
Mr Lang requested the Federal Ministry for Defence to take no action
until the European Court of Human Rights had decided on his
application. The applicant was informed that an instruction had been
issued to the relevant Military Authority not to call him up until
further notice. Thus, he has never been required to perform any kind
of military service (see paragraph 12 of the judgment).
3. In the meantime the European Court of Human Rights adopted a
judgment in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and
Others v. Austria (no. 40825/98, 31 July 2008), in which it found a
breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with
Article 9 because of the impossibility for the Jehovah's Witnesses in
Austria to obtain the (privileged) status of a religious society and
register as such (see paragraph 30 of the judgment). Since this status
question is the key element in the cases concerning the performance of
military service by applicants who assumed religious functions within
the Jehovah's Witnesses, comparable to functions within recognized
religious societies, the Court followed the approach adopted in the
above-mentioned case to find further breaches of the same Articles, on
the basis of the same reasoning, in the above-mentioned cases of Gtl
v. Austria and Lffelmann v. Austria, where the applicants were
obliged to perform their (civilian) military service.
4. In cases in which a matter has been resolved at the domestic
level, it is the Court's established case-law to accept that there is
no need to continue the examination of such applications (for
instance, where an applicant obtains permission to remain in a country
instead of being expulsed, cf. Barakat Saleh v. the Netherlands, no.
15243/04, 3 June 2008; Yuusuf Nuur v. the Netherlands, no. 1734/04, 31
January 2008; and Sisojeva v. Latvia, [GC], 60654/00, 5 January 2001,
S:S: 102-104). In my opinion, the same approach should be applied in
cases where a matter has been resolved by the European Court of Human
Rights, as in the present case. It is clear that the Austrian
authorities, which since 2003 have stayed the order for the applicant
to perform his military service, will not call him up following the
Court's adoption of judgments in the cases of Religionsgemeinschaft
der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, Gtl v. Austria and
Lffelmann v. Austria, in which it has decided both the question of
principle underlying the problem at issue and also the issue relating
to the performance of military service for persons assuming religious
functions, such as obtained in the present case.
5. Consequently, and in the light of all the relevant circumstances
of the case, I consider that the fact that the applicant's
conscription was postponed in 2003 pending the outcome of the
Strasbourg proceedings (see paragraph 12 of the judgment) and the fact
that the Court has in the meantime adopted the above-mentioned
judgments, in which it found a breach of Convention rights in
analogous cases, are adequate and sufficient to remedy the applicant's
complaint. The matter giving rise to his complaint can therefore now
be considered to be "resolved" within the meaning of Article 37 S: 1
(b). No particular reason relating to respect for human rights as
defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue its
examination of the application under Article 37 S: 1 in fine.
6. Thus, in my opinion the application should be struck out of the
Court's list of cases.
13 LANG v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT
LANG v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 13
14 LANG v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT - SEPARATE OPINION
LANG v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT - SEPARATE OPINION 13
Добавить комментарий: