| Analysis |
This is an important judgement for legal-technical reasons. The Commission finds that the core of the claim regards Article 1 of the First Protocol (P1-1), while Austria had made a reservation on this point. Hence, the claim is rejected on this point. The applicant also alleges a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention on the same point, but the Commission finds that these claims have to be rejected ‘since in the circumstances it cannot be divorced from object of the reservation and the Commission could not accept this complaint without deliberately ignoring the clear purpose of the reservation; [] whereas it follows that the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Protocol (P1) as applicable in the case of Austria and must therefore be rejected under Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.’
This is an important decision because Austria did not make a reservation on Article 8 or 14 ECHR, but only with respect to the First Protocol. A strict interpretation could have led the Commission to acknowledging that it could not assess the complaint under the Protocol, but that it could do so under the Convention. The Commission, however, stressed that because the matter was first and foremost a matter concerning the protection of property, the reservation must be read as extending to other articles that cover aspects also covered by the reservation.
In this way, it fits into the line of reasoning adopted by the Commission in the Belgian Linguistic case.
|