Wolfmeyer v. Austria
From DADEL
Case Summary
Case of Wolfmeyer v. Austria
European Court of Human Rights
Application no. 5263/03
Judgment of 26 May 2005
The Applicant, an Austrian citizen, claims to be a victim of a violation by Austria of Article 8 taken alone and Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention”).
Contents |
Facts
The Applicant was convicted by the Feldkirch Regional Court under Article 209 of the Criminal Code for having committed homosexual acts with adolescents and sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation. Pursuant to a request made in Applicant's appeal, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal requested that the Constitutional Court review the constitutionality of Article 209. On 21 June 2002, the Constitutional Court found that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. Following this decision, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal acquitted the Applicant. On 20 September 2002, the Feldkirch Regional Court dismissed the Applicant's request for reimbursement of his defence costs, holding that under Article 393a(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no right to compensation existed if the accused was not punishable for reasons that occurred after the indictment was filed. On appeal, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly granted the Applicant's claim and awarded him partial reimbursement for costs and expenses.
In his pleadings before the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court”), the Applicant argued that neither the Constitutional Court's declaration of the unconstitutionality of Article 209 of the Criminal Code nor his acquittal and the granting of litigation costs acknowledged, let alone afforded redress, for the violation of his rights under the Convention. The publicity of the court proceedings and his conviction had humiliated him and, consequently, he had lost his job. Moreover, he did not receive any redress for non-pecuniary damage sustained and had to bear the greater part of his defence costs.
Admissibility
According to the Court, neither the Applicant's acquittal nor the subsequent partial costs award amounted to recognition by the State of a violation of the Applicant's right against discrimination. It noted that the acquittal of the Applicant without any compensation for humiliation on account of penalisation of his sexuality did not provide adequate redress to him and he can be considered a victim under the Convention.
Merits
The Applicant relied on the Court's judgments in L. and V. v. Austria and S.L. v. Austria. The Court found that apart from facts immaterial to the issue, the case of the Applicant was similar to these cases. It held that the existence of Article 209 of the Criminal Code and the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the Applicant under the said provision amounted to a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8. In light of this finding, the Court did not find it necessary to consider the Applicants argument under Article 8 of the Convention.
Decision
The Court found unanimously that there has been a violation by Austria of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. The Court considered that the acquittal, though relevant in assessing the non-pecuniary damage, cannot undo the suffering associated with the public exposure of the most intimate aspects of the Applicant's private life or the loss of his employment and awarded the Applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.