X. v. AUSTRIA - 1418/62 1963] ECHR 1 (21 June 1963)

X. v. AUSTRIA - 1418/62 1963] ECHR 1 (21 June 1963)

Although the 'croquis' system was undesirable and could give rise to prejudice, in this case the applicant was not deprived of a fair hearing because the Attorney-General's intervention was ultimately in his favour, the relevant parts of the 'croquis' were disclosed before the public hearing, and the final outcome was beneficial to the applicant. The application was therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27(2) of the Convention.

Parties
Applicant: X.; Respondent: Austria
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 June 1963
Procedural Posture
Application to European Commission of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Equality of Arms, Criminal Procedure, Nullity Plea, Disclosure of Prosecution Submissions
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Right to Fair Trial Equality of Arms Criminal Procedure Nullity Plea Disclosure of Prosecution Submissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X.

Applicant

Austria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Commission of Human Rights / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'croquis' system violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by prejudicing the applicant's right to a fair trial and equality of arms

Ratio Decidendi

Although the 'croquis' system was undesirable and could give rise to prejudice, in this case the applicant was not deprived of a fair hearing because the Attorney-General's intervention was ultimately in his favour, the relevant parts of the 'croquis' were disclosed before the public hearing, and the final outcome was beneficial to the applicant. The application was therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27(2) of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.