Lexploria

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised

as follows:

I. The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1924 and at present

living in Hamburg.

The application concerns criminal proceedings in two cases involving

multiple charges of fraud - the D. and the R. case.

The Commission, by its partial decision of 14 December 1972, declared

the application inadmissible, with the exception of the applicant's

complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention relating to the length

of the criminal proceedings against him before the German authorities

in the R. case.

The present decision concerns this remaining complaint.

II. In the R. case, the applicant was accused:

(1) of having pretended, or caused representatives of agents of his

to pretend, to at least 1,315 indebted persons that the firm of R. and

later on, that of PR. would take over their debts and allow them more

favourable terms of payment; of having induced the persons concerned

to make out bills of exchange in respect of fees (Gebührenwechsel) and

to pay him fees when in reality he only wanted to pass on these

persons' instalment payments to their creditors and to ask the latter

for more favourable terms of payment:

(2) of having recruited at least 1,024 part-time workers (agents) and

made them believe that they were working for a sound business firm,

that they could expect good earnings for quite some time and that they

would be provided with a sufficient number of addresses of persons

interested in taking up a loan or in reorganising their debts, and of

having induced them to give security in, as a rule, an amount of DM

300,- which, so he was accused of having alleged, could be set off

against the commission or would be repaid.

III. The development of the criminal proceedings in this case, from

1963 until 1967, was as follows:

(1) The first charges of fraud were made in July 1963.

(2) On .. October 1963 the Public Prosecutor's Office applied for a

preliminary judicial investigation to be opened against the applicant

and three other persons; the investigation was opened on 6 November.

(3) On .. November 1963 the Hamburg business premises of the PR. were

searched and a large bulk of business papers and documents were seized.

Information was obtained from banks.

(4) On .. December 1963 a warrant was issued for the arrest of the

applicant who wanted to travel to South Africa. The applicant was

arrested in Zurich on .. December and surrendered to the German

authorities on .. December. From .. December 1963 until .. March 1964

he was detention on remand.

(5) In 1964 the investigation was extended to nine further accused.

A number of hearings of the accused took place.

To clarify the charges of the "security-giving matter", over 1,000

contracts made with the agents concerned were examined. In addition to

this, a total of 87 victims who had given such a security were heard

in other towns between .. August and .. September 1964. The question

was clarified what had become of the security payments (inter alia,

transfers to Post Office Bank accounts and bank accounts; Postal

Orders; C.o.D. Payments; cash payments; cheques and bills of exchange.)

To clarify the "debt-reorganising business", more than 1,300

debt-reorganising contracts were examined. Here, too, the payments were

followed up, and this with banks in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and

Liechtenstein.

(6) From .. March until .. April 1966 the applicant was again

detained on remand.

(7) On .. August 1966 the Investigating Judge, having concluded the

preliminary investigation, transmitted to the Public Prosecutor's

Office his final report comprising 1,069 pages together with the

case-file which, at that time, consisted of, inter alia:

100 principal files,

103 special files

40 folders with correspondence with agents

42 folders containing debt-reorganising cases

83 folders containing further evidence

23 business files

about 1,000 filing cards concerning the work and contracts of agents

about 500 account-cards of agents

2 folders containing control slips

1 folder containing control envelopes

1 file containing forms

1 plastic wrapper containing forms

18 supplementary files.

IV. After the preliminary investigation the proceedings developed as

follows

.../10/67 Warrant for the arrest of the accused P. issued by the

Public Prosecutor. The police investigations finally

ascertained that P. was probably deceased.

../4/68 Instruction of the Public Prosecutor to close the

investigation in this case.

../5/68 Application by the accused for being given an oral hearing

on the results of the investigation.

../5/68 Application by Rechtsanwalt M., as counsel instructed by X.,

for an extension by 8 weeks of the time given for pursuing

the final report.

../7/68 Final hearing of the accused R.

../8/68 Final hearing of the accused X.

../9/68 ..., on whom the accused G. had relied after the

investigations had been concluded, is heard as a witness by

the Public Prosecutor.

../10/68 Written pleadings on behalf of the accused R. by his

counsel.

../11/68 The indictment is preferred.

../12/68 Rechtsanwalt M. is appointed official counsel for the

accused X. after having so far been counsel of x's own

choice.

../12/68 Rechtsanwalt M., as counsel for X., applies for an extension

of the time for filing a statement until the end of January

1969.

../1/69 Change of competence as a result of a redistribution of

work. The case is now dealt with by the 10th Grand Criminal

Chamber (Große Strafkammer 10) instead of by the so far

competent 1st Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court

(Landgericht) of Hamburg.

../1/69 Rechtsanwalt M., a counsel for the accused X., applies for

a further extension of time by 8 weeks for filing the

statement of defence. The application is granted.

../4/69 The Presiding Judge of the 10th Grand Criminal Chamber

enquiries with Rechtsanwalt M. after the date up to when he,

Dr. M., requests the extension of time for filing the

statement of defence in answer to the public charge.

../6/69 Rechtsanwalt M. applies for a further extension of time by

at least 5 months in view of the big volume of files and

records in the case. The application is granted.

../7/69 The proceedings against the accused A., B., C., D., E., and

F. are discontinued by order of the Court.

../7/69 The proceedings against the accused G. are discontinued by

an order of the Court.

../7/69 By an order of the court, the proceedings in the case of the

accused H. are provisionally stayed under Article 154 (2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

../1/70 The Regional Court of Hamburg sets up special chambers for

dealing with white collar crime into which category also the

proceedings in X.'s case belong. Therefore this case now

falls to be dealt with by the newly reformed 16th Grand

Criminal Chamber which, in addition to this case, also takes

over a number of further criminal proceedings that had so

far been dealt with by other chambers.

../7/70 Appointment of one additional official counsel each for the

accused R., X. and Y. Rechtsanwalt T. is appointed 2nd

official counsel for X.

Counsel are informed that the decision of the opening of the trial and

an order fixing the trial date will be made in the course of the autumn

of 1970 and that it is intended to begin the trial of the three accused

R., X., and Y on ... November 1970.

../10/70 Order opening the trial in the case of the accused R., X.,

and Y.

../11/70 Warrant for the arrest of X. (who had apparently moved to

Liechtenstein).

../11/70 Warrant for the arrest of Y.

../11/70 A request is made out for an international search of the

accused X. and Y.

../11/70 Y. is arrested in Liechtenstein.

../11/70 Report of the criminal police Hamburg on the measures taken

since ... November 1970 in search of the accused X. and Y.

In X.'s case an arrest has not yet been possible. (It

appears that he fled via Italy and the United Kingdom to

Panama.)

../11/70 Beginning of the trial of R. and Y. before the Regional

Court of Hamburg. The proceedings against X. are separated

from the other proceedings and provisionally discontinued

under Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

../12/70 An international search is instituted against X. in several

European countries.

../12/70 Rechtsanwalt M. asks for being released from representing

X. as official counsel in view of the fact, amongst others,

that X. has absconded.

../1/71 Rechtsanwalt M. is released from representing the accused

X. as official counsel.

../2/71 X. is apprehended in Trieste/Italy.

../2/71 Request by the Public Prosecutor's Office, Hamburg, to the

Public Prosecutor with the Court of Appeal (Corte die

Appello) of Trieste for X.'s provisional arrest pending

extradition.

../2/71 The Regional Court of Hamburg issues a warrant for X.'s

arrest for the purpose of his extradition.

../3/71 The Federal Republic of Germany requests his extradition

from Italy.

../3/71 The Federal Republic of Germany requests his extradition

from Italy.

../3/71 Judgment in the proceedings against R. and Y. is pronounced

by the Regional Court of Hamburg: R. and Y. are convicted

and sentenced to imprisonment, the corresponding part out

of the total sentence in the case of R. being four years and

four and a half years, respectively. The written reasons of

the judgment comprise 444 pages. The judgment becomes final

in 1972.

../7/71 The Court of Appeal of Trieste accedes to the Federal

Republic's request for extradition of .../3/71.

../1/72 Complete change in the composition of the 16th Grand

Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg as a

result of the distribution of work for the year 1972.

../2/72 X's appeal (ricorso) from the decision of the Court of

Appeal of Trieste of .../7/71 is dismissed by the Court of

Cassation (Corte Suprema di Cassazione).

../3/72 Temporary change in the presidency of the 16th Grand

Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg as a

result of the establishment of a new Schwurgericht (Criminal

Chamber supplemented by lay judges). The judge temporarily

acting as presiding judge of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber

does so in addition to his activity in another Criminal

Chamber.

../4/72 X.'s extradition is granted by the Italian Ministry of

Justice and Grace.

../5/72 X. is surrendered to, and received in, the Federal Republic

of Germany.

../5/72 A new presiding judge for the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber

of the Regional Court of Hamburg has been appointed and is

taking over.

../5/72 Oral hearing for reviewing the pre-trial detention order

against X. by the Regional Court (16th Grand Criminal

Chamber). An order is made that his detention shall

continue.

../5/72 Clarifying statement made by the Italian Ministry of Justice

and Grace concerning the granting of X.'s extradition.

../5/72 X.'s appeal (Beschwerde) from the Regional Court's order of

../5/72 is dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of

Hamburg. The Court of Appeal states that he is strongly

suspected of having committed the offenses concerned, that

there is a danger of his absconding and that his continued

detention is not out of proportion to the importance of the

case and the sentence to be expected.

../7/72 The Court of Appeal reviews X.'s detention, under Article

121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and decides that it

shall continue.

../7/72 The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

decides that X.'s constitutional appeal

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) against the decision of the Court

of Appeal of .../5/72 shall not be accepted for decision on

the ground that it does not offer a sufficient prospect of

success.

../7/72 X. asks for Frau Rechtsanwältin S. to be appointed official

counsel for his defence on the ground of differences with

his counsel, Dr. M. and Dr. T.

../8/72 Information from X. that he has cancelled Dr. M.'s brief as

counsel of his choice.

../8/72 Rechtsanwalt T. asks to be released from representing X. as

official counsel.

../9/72 The Presiding Judge of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber

notifies the President of the Regional Court that it is

intended to start X.'s trial about the middle of November

1972 and announces that an additional judge and an

additional lay judge will be applied for because of the

expected duration of the trial of about five months.

../9/72 Rechtsanwalt T.'s appointment as official counsel for X. is

revoked and Frau Rechtsanwältin S. is appointed official

counsel in his place.

../10/72 The Court of Appeal of Hamburg makes a new order under

Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for X.'s

continued detention pending trial.

../10/72 Rechtsanwalt W. is appointed additional counsel for the

accused X. and a date is fixed by the Presiding Judge of the

16th Grand Chamber of the Regional Court.

../11/72 Beginning of the trial of the accused X. (The case-file now

comprises, inter alia, 145 volumes of principal files, 50

witnesses and two experts have been summoned to give

evidence.)

../6/73 X. is convicted by the Grand Criminal Chamber of the

Regional Court of Hamburg on charges of fraud and sentenced

to four and a half years' imprisonment. The periods which

he spent in detention pending extradition (in Switzerland

and Italy) or pending trial (in Germany) are counted towards

his sentence. The warrant for his arrest is set aside.

Both X. and the Public Prosecutor's Office lodge an appeal on points

of law (Revision) with the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof).

Submissions of the parties

I. The respondent Government submit that the applicant's remaining

complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention, concerning the length

of the criminal proceedings against him in the R. case, is

inadmissible:

- for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and

- in any case, as being manifestly ill-founded and, furthermore,

as constituting an abuse of the right of petition.

1. The Government state that, according to the Federal Court's

case-law in criminal matters (judgment of 10 November 1971, Neue

Juristische Wochenschrift 1972, pages 402, et seq.), a violation of

Article 6 (1), as alleged in the present case, has to be taken into

account in fixing the applicant's sentence. The applicant could raise

this issue in the appeal proceedings before the Federal Court. He could

furthermore file another constitutional appeal with the Federal

Constitutional Court. It follows that he has not yet exhausted all the

domestic remedies available to him under German law and that the

remainder of his application is therefore inadmissible under Articles

26 and 27 (3) of the Convention.

2. Alternatively, the Government submit that the remaining complaint

is manifestly ill-founded and, moreover, constitutes an abuse of the

right of petition within the meaning of Article 27 (2), of the

Convention. In the Government's view, the period to be considered under

Article 6 (1) in the present case cannot, in the light of the special

circumstances of the case, be called unreasonably long. The

clarification of the complicated facts, and of the large number of

alleged offenses, inevitably took up considerable time. Furthermore,

the proceedings were not delayed by the authorities, but by the

applicant's escape in 1970 and his subsequent refusal to stand trial.

The Government submit in particular:

(a) That the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) of the

Convention began on the day of the applicant's arrest in Switzerland

on ... December 1963 and that it is still running.

(b) That the criminal proceedings were not delayed. The only reason

for the length of the time taken up by the preliminary investigation

(1963-1966) was the exceptionally large number of alleged offenses that

had to be investigated, and the time consumed by this cannot be said

to have been too long.

(c) It was also justified or, respectively, necessary to institute

a search for the accused P. after the preliminary investigation was

concluded, and to grant a final hearing. As the Public Prosecutor

dealing with the case had first to make himself acquainted with the

bulk of the material, the time that elapsed between .... August 1966

and ... November 1968, the date when the charge was preferred, must be

regarded as being within limits taking into account the entire

circumstances of the case.

(d) In 1969 counsel for the applicant was granted several extensions

of time of some duration for filing the statement of defence, in answer

to the charge. The proceedings were, furthermore, speeded up by the

proceedings against several other accused being discontinued. An

automatic delay was unavoidable when on ... January 1970 a new Special

Chamber for white collar crime at the Regional Court of Hamburg took

over these proceedings and certain others. In spite of this, the trial

was opened as early as ... October 1970. As the great amount of

disputed material had again to be examined in preparation of the

decision for opening the trial, the time between the preferment of the

charge and the decision on the opening of the trial was not

unreasonably long.

(e) The trial in the case of the accused R. and Y. began on ...

November 1970. The applicant himself is responsible for the fact that

he did not appear at that trial but avoided being tried by absconding.

If he had taken part in the trial it would have been possible in the

summer of 1971, at the latest, to give judgment with regard to his

alleged offenses. He therefore has only himself to blame for the delay

of the proceedings caused by his absconding abroad. The period up to

... May 1972, the day when the applicant was surrendered to the Federal

Republic of Germany, must therefore be left out of consideration when

determining the question whether or not the criminal proceedings took

an unreasonably long time.

(f) After ... May 1972 it was not possible to have a new trial for

the applicant start at once. The composition of the 16th Grand Criminal

Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg had been changed on ...

January and again on ... May 1972, so that it became necessary once

again for the big volume of files and records to be studied and worked

through. Apart from this, the official counsels were exchanged on the

applicant's request. In view of this situation of fact the new trial

of the applicant was not started unreasonably late when it began on ...

November 1972.

(g) Taking into account the big volume of the matter and the fact

that an expert was challenged during the trial, it cannot be said that

the trial proceedings lasted too long. In order to arrive at the truth,

the Criminal Chamber had to elucidate the complicated facts thoroughly

according to German criminal procedural law.

(h) It follows that there is manifestly no violation of Article 6 (1)

and that the applicant's submission alleging such a violation

constitutes an abuse of the right of petition, for he himself, by

absconding to a foreign country, prevented the criminal proceedings

from being terminated at an earlier date.

II. The applicant submits in reply:

- that all domestic remedies have been exhausted in respect of his

remaining complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention, and

- that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor

abusive.

1. As regards the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the

applicant recalls that the Federal Constitutional Court, on ... July

1972, decided not to accept for decision his constitutional appeal

concerning his continued detention pending trial on the ground that it

did not offer a sufficient prospect of success. He concludes from this

decision that any new domestic remedy alleging a violation of Article

6 (1) of the Convention would prove equally ineffective.

2. As regards the question whether his remaining complaint is

manifestly ill-founded or abusive, the applicant considers that the

criminal proceedings against him in the R. case "could and should have

been finished a long time ago" and that he himself is not responsible

for "the length of the case lasting for ten years".

The applicant submits in particular:

(a) That the proceedings should have been accelerated during his

detention in 1963/64 and thereafter.

(b) That it was unnecessary "to hear thousands of complaints as

witnesses". The case revealed a certain system and, consequently, only

"a restricted number of complaints could and should have been

considered".

(c) That he was repeatedly released pending trial. While his release

in 1964 had been made dependent on a cash security of 25,000 DM, the

release two years later was ordered without any security. This showed

that the authorities "were quite prepared to take their own

responsibility in dealing with the warrant of arrest". They therefore

cannot blame him for absconding to a foreign country.

THE LAW

I. The respondent Government submit in the first place that the

applicant's remaining complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against

him in the R. case, is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies (Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention).

The applicant contests this view.

The Commission does not find it necessary to determine this issue,

which raises complicated questions under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention, as it follows from the reasons stated under II below that

the application must in any case be declared inadmissible as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

II. Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides that, in the

determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled

to a hearing "within a reasonable time". The Commission, in its

examination of the applicant's complaint relating to the length of the

proceedings in the R. case, has first ascertained the period to be

considered under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) and then evaluated the

concrete circumstances of the case, taking into account not only its

complexity and the manner in which it was handled by the national

authorities, but also the applicant's own conduct.

1. In its determination of the period to be considered under Article

6 (1) (Art. 6-1), the Commission has had regard to the judgment of the

European Court of Human Rights in the "Wemhoff, Neumeister"

and "Ringeisen" Cases (see European Court of Human Rights "Wemhoff"

case and "Neumeister" case, judgments of 27 June 1968, and "Ringeisen"

case, judgment of 16 July 1971), and to its own opinion in the

"Soltikow" Case (see Report of 3 February 1970) as confirmed by the

Committee of Ministers' decision of 19 February 1971 (see Resolution

DH (71) 1).

In accordance with this case-law, the period to be taken into

consideration under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) begins with the date on

which a person is charged. The term "charge" cannot, on the one hand,

be construed in the terms of the domestic law of any of the Contracting

States but must be interpreted independently. On the other hand, it may

be necessary to have regard to the whole system and practice of

criminal procedure of the State against which the application is

directed in order to interpret and thus delimit the notion of "charge"

for the purpose of applying that notion to the facts of a particular

case under consideration (see the Commission's opinion in the Soltikow

Case). Three possible starting dates emerge from the above case-law:

the date of the applicant's arrest, the date of the opening of

preliminary investigations against him, or the date of the filing of

the indictment. It is difficult, therefore, to identify the particular

moment in time when an applicant before the Commission can be said to

have been charged in the context of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1).

The Commission considers that, in order to resolve that question in the

present case, it must revert to the principle which it established in

the Neumeister Case to the effect that "the relevant stage is that at

which the situation of the person concerned has been substantially

affected as a result of the suspicion against him" (see the

Commission's Report of 27 May 1966, page 81). This situation has been

held to exist in Austrian cases where preliminary judicial

investigation had been opened against the applicant. The Commission

considers that the situation under German law is in this respect

comparable to that under Austrian law. It notes that, in the present

case, a preliminary judicial investigation was opened against the

applicant and three further suspects on ... November 1963.

The Commission concludes that the period to be considered under Article

6 (1) (Art. 6-1) began in this case on the above date.

2. The closing date of the said period is normally that on which

criminal charges are finally determined by an acquittal or a

conviction, even if this determination is made on appeal by a court

which pronounces upon the merits of the charge, and the Commission

refers in this regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human

Rights and to its case-law (see for example the "Wemhoff", "Neumeister"

and "Ringeisen" Cases.)

The same result can be achieved where the criminal proceedings

terminate otherwise, e.g. by their discontinuance, and in this respect

the Commission refers to its decision on the admissibility of

Application No. 4550/70, Graf Soltikow against the Federal Republic of

Germany (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 38, p. 123).

The charges against the applicant were determined at first instance on

... June 1973 and he appealed. However, there are special reasons for

not adopting either this or any later date as the close of the period

under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) in the present case.

The Commission observes that an order opening the trial in the case of

the applicant and two further accused was made on ... October 1970. The

applicant however, did not appear for trial but apparently fled from

Liechtenstein , where he was then residing, via Italy and the United

Kingdom to Panama. An international search warrant was issued against

him in several European countries and he was finally apprehended in

Italy on ... February 1971. The Federal Republic of Germany requested

his extradition and the Court of Appeal of Trieste, on ... July 1971,

acceded to the request. The applicant's appeal from this decision was

dismissed by the Court of Cassation on ... February 1972. On ... April

the Italian Ministry of Justice and Grace granted his extradition and

on ... May 1972 he was surrendered to, and received in, the Federal

Republic of Germany.

In the meanwhile, the trial of the other two accused had taken place

and judgment had been given by the Regional Court of Hamburg on ...

March 1971. A new trial had to be held for the applicant; it opened

on ... November 1972.

It follows that the applicant himself, by his escape and refusal to

appear in court, prevented his own trial from starting in 1970 and

that, as a result of his own conduct, his own trial began two years

later than that of his co-accused.

The Commission finds that it must take this element into consideration

when determining, in the present case, the relevant period under

Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. It therefore concludes that

this period lasted from ... November 1963 (opening of the preliminary

judicial investigation) until ... October 1970 (order opening the

trial), that is to say, for approximately seven years.

The Commission has next considered the question whether this period

exceeded the limits of a "reasonable time" as laid down in Article 6

(1) (Art. 6-1). In approaching this question, it has had regard to the

principles which have been developed by the European Court of Human

Rights particularly in its judgments of 27 June 1968 in the "Wemhoff"

and "Neumeister" Cases, and which have been summarised in the

Commission's Report of 19 March 1970, in the "Ringeisen" Case as

confirmed in the Court's judgment of 16 July 1971 in that case.

According to these principles, the question whether or not the

applicant, in the determination of the criminal charges against him in

the R. case, has had a hearing "within a reasonable time" in the sense

of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be decided by an

evaluation of the concrete circumstances of the case, in particular:

the complexity of the case as a whole, the manner in which it was

handled by the prosecuting authorities and courts, and the applicant's

own conduct.

The complexity of the case against the applicant and his co-accused is

manifest, given the number of acts done, witnesses to be heard, and

countries in which enquiries had to be made. The Commission finds that

there were a number of factors causing delay in the criminal

proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused from 1963 to 1970,

including the redistribution of judicial work on two occasions.

However, it is plain that the delays, and requests for extensions of

time, by counsel for the applicant were an inseparable and major cause

of the whole delay. Furthermore, they were either necessary, given the

complexity of the case or, on the other hand, they were only designed

to postpone trial, a motive indicated by the two flights abroad of the

applicant in 1963 and in 1970, at a time when his trial was to take

place, and his persistent refusal, until 1972, to return to Germany to

stand trial.

In either case the Commission, in considering the entire period between

1963 and 1970, concludes that the applicant's remaining complaint that

reasonable time was exceeded under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS

APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Menu

K. v. ITALY AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

K. v. ITALY AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

LEXI