European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)36¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Öllinger against Austria

(Application No. 76900/01, judgment of 29 June 2006, final on 29 September 2006)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly on account of the Austrian authorities’ refusal to autorise a public meeting (violation of Article 11) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)36

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Öllinger against Austria

Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly due to the authorities’ refusal to authorise him to hold a silent vigil with six others in Salzburg municipal cemetery in memory of the Jews of the city killed by the SS and in protest against a rally of combat veterans, mainly former SS members, on the same day, All Saint’s Day, 1/11/1998.

The European Court held that the domestic authorities had put too much emphasis on the need to protect other visitors to the cemetery against the rather limited risk of disturbance, in comparison with the interests of the applicant (violation of Article 11).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The applicant had made no claim for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages before the European Court.

II. General measures

The violation appears to constitute a single incident resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. The Austrian authorities consider that given the direct effect of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in Austria, the publication and dissemination of the judgment should guarantee that the competent authorities align their practice to the requirements of the Convention under Article 11 as they result from the present case. Thus, the Court’s judgment was published in German e.g. in the Newsletter of the Austrian Human Rights Institute (NL 2006, p. 150 (NL 06/3/14), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/06_3/06_3_14). As with all judgments of the Court against Austria, the judgment was automatically transmitted to the Presidency of the domestic court concerned. A summary of the Court’s judgments and decisions concerning Austria is regularly prepared by the Federal Chancellery and disseminated widely to relevant Austrian authorities as well as Parliament and courts. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all state authorities through internal databases as well as the general database provided by the Federal Chancellery (RIS)

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the costs and expenses, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Austria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.