PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 38549/97) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Snjezana Vostic (“the applicant”), on 22 September 1997.

The applicant was represented by Mr C. Schwab, a lawyer practising in Wels. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that the court decisions in compensation proceedings for detention on remand violated the presumption of innocence.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

By a decision of 19 June 2001 the Court declared the application admissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Austria.

On 10 April 1996 the applicant was arrested and on 12 April the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht) remanded her in custody on suspicion of murder. Her repeated requests for release remained unsuccessful.

On 13 December 1996 the Wels Regional Court, sitting as an assize court, composed of three professional judges and an eight member jury, acquitted the applicant. The jury answered the main question as to murder with six votes “no” and two votes “yes”. In the record of its deliberations, the jury gave the following reasons for its decision: “The evidence produced at the trial is not sufficient to convict the accused. As the incriminating witnesses were partially not credible – acquittal in dubio”. Upon the pronouncement of the acquittal, the applicant was released.

Immediately after the pronouncement of the acquittal, at the same hearing, the applicant requested compensation for her detention on remand. The Wels Regional Court, with the same composition as above, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that, apart from the fact that the jury’s verdict had not been unanimous, the suspicion against the applicant had not been dispelled. Thus the requirements of section 2 (1)(b) of the Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969 – “the 1969 Act”) were not met. In particular, the statement of the applicant’s parents that she had spent the night of the murder at their home was not credible. In addition, she had owned a weapon which could have been the one used for the murder and her defence that she had no contact with the victim shortly before the commission of the crime had been disproved by the statements of a number of witnesses. The decision was served on the applicant after her acquittal had become final on 17 December 1996.

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht). She argued that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the main suspicion against her had been dispelled during the trial.

On 20 June 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the case of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), it considered that only a decision which, following the accused’s acquittal, expressed the view that he or she was guilty could violate the presumption of innocence, whereas the Regional Court had only found that there was a remaining suspicion against the applicant. Further, referring to the Constitutional Court’s (Verfassungsgerichtshof) judgment of 29 September 1994, it found that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was not in itself incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal continued as follows: “Nor does the principle of the presumption of innocence prevent the prosecuting authorities from suspecting someone of having committed an offence. By section 2(1)(b) of the [1969 Act], refusal of a claim [for compensation] (on the ground that suspicion has not been dispelled) depends not on proven guilt but on the possibility that the person concerned may have committed the offence and therefore on a (persisting) suspicion... In the instant case it was precisely such a suspicion concerning Snjezana Vostic that had not been wholly dispelled, particularly in view of the fact that it was still possible that Snjezana Vostic’s gun had been the murder weapon; furthermore, inconsistencies remain unresolved. The trial court thus rightly held that the testimony given by the parents of the appellant, whose alibi related to the night of 31 March to 1 April 1996, was not credible; and Snjezana Vostic’s own testimony to the effect that she had last seen Sejdo Nadarevic in mid-February 1996 was in the end disproved by the witnesses who gave evidence at the trial.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e1
001-60688_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
38549/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60688_a8_e2
001-60688_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e3
001-60688_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e4
001-60688_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Snjezana Vostic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e5
001-60688_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e6
001-60688_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Schwab
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60688_a8_e7
001-60688_a8_em7
LOC
QUASI
Wels
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e8
001-60688_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e9
001-60688_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
H. Winkler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e10
001-60688_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
International Law Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e11
001-60688_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e12
001-60688_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
19 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e13
001-60688_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1966
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e14
001-60688_a8_em14
LOC
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e15
001-60688_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e16
001-60688_a8_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
12 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e17
001-60688_a8_em17
ORG
QUASI
Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e18
001-60688_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
13 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e17
001-60688_a8_em19
ORG
QUASI
001-60688_a8_em17
Wels Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e17
001-60688_a8_em20
ORG
QUASI
Wels Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e19
001-60688_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
17 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e20
001-60688_a8_em22
ORG
QUASI
Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e21
001-60688_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
20 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e20
001-60688_a8_em24
ORG
QUASI
001-60688_a8_em22
Linz Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e22
001-60688_a8_em25
MISC
NO_MASK
Sekanina v. Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e23
001-60688_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
25 August 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e24
001-60688_a8_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e25
001-60688_a8_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e26
001-60688_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60688_a8_e4
001-60688_a8_em30
PERSON
DIRECT
Snjezana Vostic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e4
001-60688_a8_em31
PERSON
DIRECT
Snjezana Vostic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e27
001-60688_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
31 March to 1 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e4
001-60688_a8_em33
PERSON
DIRECT
Snjezana Vostic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60688_a8_e28
001-60688_a8_em34
PERSON
DIRECT
Sejdo Nadarevic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60688_a8_e29
001-60688_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1996
Snjezana Vostic
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Snjezana Vostic