Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 16566/90

They further point out that theEuropean Court of Human Rights has accepted that the AdministrativeCourt is an impartial and independent tribunal in, for example, thecase of Ettl (Eur. Court H.R., Ettl judgment of 23 April 1987, SeriesA no. 117, p. 17, paras. 34, 35), and that Article 6 (Art. 6) iscomplied with if, in administrative "criminal" matters, a last instancedecision is taken by an independent and impartial tribunal (Eur. CourtH.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73).

Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 16566/90

It is true, as the Government submit, that it would have beenopen to the applicant in the light of the findings of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the case of Belilos (judgment of29 April 1988, Series A no. 132), to submit to the Constitutional Courtthat that Court's traditional reasoning as to the Austrian reservationto Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention should be re-considered.However, although the Convention has the status of constitutional lawin Austria, the domestic courts are not formally bound by the findingsof the Strasbourg organs, and the Government have not indicated how thefindings of the European Court of Human Rights in a Swiss caseinvolving an interpretative declaration to Article 6 (Art. 6) of theConvention could have led to the Constitutional Court amending itslong-standing case-law on the Austrian reservation to Article 5(Art. 5) of the Convention (cf. Demicoli v. Malta, 13057/87,Dec. 15.3.89, D.R. 60, p. 243, 248 with further references).

Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 16566/90

The Commission notes that the case of Weber was decided by theEuropean Court of Human Rights on 22 May 1990 (Series A no. 177),post-dating the Vienna Provincial Governor's decision of 12 June 1989by almost a year.

Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 16566/90

It is true, as the Government submit, that it would have beenopen to the applicant in the light of the findings of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights in the case of Belilos (judgment of29 April 1988, Series A no. 132), to submit to the Constitutional Courtthat that Court's traditional reasoning as to the Austrian reservationto Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention should be re-considered.However, although the Convention has the status of constitutional lawin Austria, the domestic courts are not formally bound by the findingsof the Strasbourg organs, and the Government have not indicated how thefindings of the European Court of Human Rights in a Swiss caseinvolving an interpretative declaration to Article 6 (Art. 6) of theConvention could have led to the Constitutional Court amending itslong-standing case-law on the Austrian reservation to Article 5(Art. 5) of the Convention (cf. Demicoli v. Malta, 13057/87,Dec. 15.3.89, D.R. 60, p. 243, 248 with further references).