European Court of Human Rights

The Government’s written observations, signed by the Agent, Mr. Nettel, were received at the Registry on 21 March 1973; the Delegates of the Commission replied thereto on 6 April.

The Court decided to dispense with oral proceedings in this instance, noting that the Government and the Commission had informed the Registrar that oral hearings did not appear to them to be necessary.

THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

In 1970, the case was referred by the Commission to the Court which gave judgment on 16 July 1971. The Court held that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention in that the detention of Ringeisen on remand had exceeded a "reasonable time"; it reserved for the applicant the right, should the occasion arise, to apply for just satisfaction on that issue.

On 27 September 1971, the Principal Delegate of the Commission transmitted to the Registrar a letter in which the applicant asked the Commission "to apply to the ... Court ... on (his) behalf and to have a decision taken in accordance with Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention ...".

Having dismissed an objection to admissibility raised by the Government and having found that the conditions for the application of Article 50 (art. 50) were fulfilled, the Court disallowed the applicant’s claim for alleged financial loss and damage to his health.

On the other hand, the Court recalled that the detention at issue had "exceeded by more than twenty-two months ... the limits of a reasonable time referred to in Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3)" and considered that in spite of certain circumstances which went "some way to compensate the damage" of which Ringeisen complained he had "certainly felt such excessive detention on remand to be a great injustice". The Court therefore considered that the applicant should be afforded just satisfaction (paragraph 26 of the judgment).

The operative provisions of the judgment of 22 June 1972 read as follows:

"For these reasons, the Court

Unanimously affords to the applicant Michael Ringeisen compensation in the sum of twenty thousand German marks to be paid by the Republic of Austria."

The reasons stated in that judgment conclude with paragraph 27 as follows:

"At the hearings before the Court the question was argued as to where the sum awarded to Ringeisen would go: could it be paid to him directly or could it be claimed by the trustee, on recommencement of the bankruptcy, for the purpose of making an additional payment to the creditors.

The Court considers that it can leave this point to the discretion of the Austrian authorities. The Court notes in this regard that under the terms of Section 2 of the Act of 18 August 1918 [on compensation for detention on remand] ... ‘no attachment or seizure may be made against a right to compensation except to secure payment of maintenance as provided for by law’ and that a similar provision appears in Section 4 of the Federal Act of 8 July 1969 on compensation for detention and conviction by the criminal courts. It would seem to be a matter of course that the same exemption from seizure must be allowed in the case of compensation due under a decision of the Court to a person whose detention on remand has been prolonged beyond the reasonable time laid down in Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention."

"First, what was the intended effect of the order for payment of compensation in D. Marks, particularly in respect of the actual currency and place of payment?

And secondly, whether the term ‘compensation’ is to be understood as payment of a sum free of any lawful claims made against it under Austrian law, or subject to such claims?"

The Commission’s request was presented in the following circumstances:

Several persons have, on the other hand, laid claim in Austria to that sum of money on the basis of debts alleged to be due to them by the applicant. One of them was Dr. Sterrer, advocate and former trustee in the bankruptcy adjudged in May 1965 and terminated in 1972 (Series B, No. 13, Ringeisen case, pp. 56 and 59).

The application, amended on 11 August so as to request leave to pay into court 143,808 Schillings, the equivalent in Austrian currency of 20,000 German marks, recited paragraph 27 and the operative provisions of the judgment of 22 June 1972 and stated that there were several claimants and that it was not clear in law to whom the money was to be paid.

The sum of 143,808 Schillings was deposited on 16 August. By decision of 1 September, the District Court acknowledged receipt of the money, and declared that it would be paid out on application made in writing by the beneficiaries or pursuant to a final court order. On 12 and 21 September, the Permanent Representative of Austria to the Council of Europe notified that decision to the Committee of Ministers - responsible under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for supervising the execution of the judgment of 22 June 1972 - and to the Registrar of the Court.

"(a) The Republic of Austria is obliged to pay at once to the applicant ... the sum of 20,000 German marks, free of all seizure or attachment, at his address:

Michael Ringeisen, 6900 Heidelberg, Freiburgerstrasse 29/VII to the right;

(b) all costs and expenses should be reimbursed at once on proof, and any damage, particularly damage to health, which has been or will be suffered after 22 June or which has been aggravated by reason of lack of treatment due to want of means should be compensated;

(c) in the event of the death of the applicant ... the compensation should be paid at once and in full to his wife ... or in the event of her death to her heirs ...".

A copy of that letter was appended to the request for interpretation which the Commission filed with the Court on 21 December 1972.

AS TO THE LAW

The Government also remarks, at the beginning of its written observations, that "the competence of the ... Court ... for interpretation of its judgments ... is based solely on the Rules of Court. Therefore, in the light of Article 52 (art. 52) of the ... Convention ..., the well-founded question may even be raised whether this legal institution is compatible at all with the Convention ...".

Rule 53 is limited to recognising this inherent jurisdiction and to settling the way in which it is to be exercised. The rule was in any case brought to the notice of the Contracting States on its adoption in 1959; it has never given rise to the least question on their part and the Austrian Government envisaged availing itself of it before the Court in the Neumeister case (Series B, No. 7, Stögmüller case, p. 192).

The Court accordingly sees no reason why it should not entertain the present request for interpretation.

In affording just satisfaction to the applicant in a sum expressed in German marks, the Court intended that the compensation should be paid to him in that currency and in the Federal Republic of Germany and not otherwise. In so deciding, the Court took into account not only the uncontested fact that Ringeisen was resident in the Federal Republic of Germany but also, inter alia, paragraph 2 of the final submissions presented by the Delegates of the Commission at the oral hearing on 27 May 1972 when they asked the Court "to rule ... whether any compensation due to Mr. Ringeisen for the mere fact of his detention beyond a reasonable time as provided in Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention should not be paid to him without delay, in view of his state of health and his needy situation" (Series B, No. 13, Ringeisen case, p. 67).

By the term "compensation" the Court meant an award of a sum to be paid to Michael Ringeisen personally as compensation for non-material damage. In referring to the "discretion of the Austrian authorities" ("la sagesse des autorités autrichiennes"), the Court did not qualify its intention by a limitation. If mention was made of Section 2 of the Austrian Act of 18 August 1918 and of Section 4 of the Act of 8 July 1969, it was to indicate that it was all the more justifiable to order a direct payment to the beneficiary in that the principle whereby debts of this kind are free from attachment applied also in Austrian law in analogous cases. What was entrusted to the discretion of the Austrian authorities is the practical execution of the measures ordered by the Court in conformity with this principle.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,

As to the first point,

Holds by six votes to one that the judgment of 22 June 1972 means that the compensation in the sum of twenty thousand German marks afforded to the applicant should be paid to him in that currency and in the Federal Republic of Germany;

As to the second point,

Holds by five votes to two that the same judgment means that the aforementioned compensation is to be paid to Michael Ringeisen personally and free from attachment.

Done in French and English, the French text being authentic, at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this twenty-third day of June one thousand nine hundred and seventy-three.

Sir Humphrey WALDOCK

President

Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar

The separate opinions of Judge Verdross and Judge Zekia are annexed to the present judgment in accordance with Article 51 § 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and Rule 50 § 2 of the Rules of Court.

H. W.

M.-A. E.