Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:31:52.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ringeisen Case

European Court of Human Rights.  16 July 1971 ; 22 June 1972 ; 23 June 1973 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for the Protection of — Protracted criminal proceedings — Detention on remand — Hearings before a body applying rules of administrative law allegedly affected by bias

Question whether the Court has authority to deal with matters of admissibility as set out in Article 26 — Whether application lodged prior to a final judgment of the municipal courts is admissible — Need for certain flexibility in the application of the domestic remedies rule and avoidance of formalism

Applicability of Article 6(1) (fair trial in, inter alia, proceedings relating to the determination of civil rights and obligations) — Unnecessary that both parties should be private persons — Application to the facts of the “fair hearing” principle — Interpretation of Austrian Governmental reservation in regard to Article 6

Article 5(3) (right of arrested or detained person to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) — Detention in regard to two criminal cases extending to two years and five months overall — Examination of the reasonableness of the length of detention in the context of the factual background

Article 6(1) (reasonableness of duration of criminal proceedings) — Complexity of proceedings — Applicant’s many appeals and applications — Length of proceedings not unreasonable in the circumstances

Question of the application of Article 50 — Not to be considered as a fresh application — Conditions for the application of Article 50 — On conviction, court taking into consideration, in determining sentence, period of detention on remand — Existence of other possible domestic legal remedies — Computation of compensation — Factors mitigating amount of compensation awarded — How sum awarded should be paid — Discretion of Austrian authorities

Request for interpretation of Article 50 judgment — Whether Court has authority to give such an interpretation — Inherent jurisdiction of the Court — Intention of the Court in awarding compensation calculated in German marks — Whether it was the Court’s intention that the sum awarded should be paid free of claims which might be made under Austrian law

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)