PARTIAL

                     AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                     Application No. 12976/87

                     by H.G.

                     against Austria

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 9 October 1991, the following members being present:

             MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             MM.  L. LOUCAIDES

                  J.-C. GEUS

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                  B. MARXER

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission,

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 5 December 1986

by H.G. against Austria and registered on 20 May 1987 under

file No. 12976/87;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows.

        The applicant, born in 1944, is an Austrian citizen and

resident in Vienna.  Since 23 August 1990 the applicant has been

represented by Mr.  R. Proksch, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

        The applicant's earlier application No. 9561/81 was declared

inadmissible on 4 October 1982.

A.      The particular circumstances of the case

        On 15 November 1985 the Salzburg Regional Court (Landes-

gericht) issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant.  The

Regional Court found that there was a strong suspicion that on

25 October 1985 in Salzburg the applicant had committed a grave theft,

namely broken into a car and stolen leather bags.  The Regional Court

referred to oral information given by the Salzburg Federal Police

Department (Bundespolizeidirektion).  It also noted that the applicant

had been seen and been recognised on a photograph.  As the applicant's

whereabouts were unknown and he risked a considerable punishment, the

Regional Court assumed a danger of absconding.

        On 14 May 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court amended the above

warrant of arrest against the applicant, who had meanwhile been

arrested in the Federal Republic of Germany and was detained on remand

at a Munich prison.  The Regional Court found that there was a strong

suspicion that on 25 October 1985 in Golling the applicant had

committed a further grave theft by having broken into a car and stolen

various objects.  It referred to the investigations of the Salzburg

Federal Police Department as well as the Golling Police Station

(Gendarmerieposten), in particular the statements of witnesses who had

recognised the type of car used on the occasion of both offences as

well as the applicant when they were shown criminal identification

photographs.  The Regional Court, referring to S. 175 para. 1 of the

Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung), confirmed

the danger of absconding as the applicant had no residence in Austria

and was detained on remand in the Federal Republic of Germany.  Having

regard to the record of the applicant's previous convictions and his

recidivism, it also assumed a danger of repetition.

        On 24 June 1986 the applicant was extradited to Austria and

taken into detention on remand in the Prison at the Salzburg Regional

Court on 25 June 1986.

        On 2 July 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's request to be released from detention on remand.  Referring

to S. 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Regional Court

confirmed the strong suspicion against the applicant that he had

committed theft on two counts, and the danger of repetition.  A danger

of absconding could, however, no longer be assumed.  The applicant's

appeal against the Regional Court's decision was dismissed by the Linz

Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 16 July 1986.

        On 13 August 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's renewed request for release from detention on remand.

Referring to the earlier review proceedings, the Regional Court found

that the applicant had not made any new relevant submissions.

        On 27 August 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the

applicant's appeal.  As regards the applicant's complaints about his

extradition, the Court of Appeal noted that, in the Federal Republic

of Germany, the applicant had been detained after a conviction until

24 June 1986.  He had then been extradited without formal extradition

proceedings.

        Meanwhile, on 12 August 1986, Mr.  W., a lawyer practising in

Salzburg, was appointed as the applicant's official defence counsel.

        On 18 August 1986 the applicant wrote a letter to his defence

counsel and gave it in a sealed envelope to a prison officer for

delivery.  According to the applicant, he had sealed the letter in

presence of the prison officer.  On the same day the officer returned

the letter to the applicant on the ground that, until the indictment

had been served upon him (Zustellung der Anklageschrift), also letters

to defence counsel had to be passed on unsealed.  He referred, in this

respect, to a prison instruction (Dienstverfügung) of 1983.

        Thereupon, on the same day, the applicant lodged a complaint

with the President of the Salzburg Regional Court, and also laid

charges against the Director of the Salzburg Prison.

        On 26 September 1986 the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) preferred the indictment (Anklageschrift) against

the applicant concerning theft on two counts in October 1985, on one

count in April 1986 and an attempted theft also in April 1986.  The

bill of indictment was served upon the applicant on 30 September 1986.

        On 30 October 1986 the trial was opened before the Salzburg

Regional Court.  The applicant contended inter alia that the criminal

proceedings against him were unlawful on the ground that his

extradition from the Federal Republic of Germany had been based on an

incorrect warrant of arrest.  He also complained about his detention

on remand and in particular about the refusal of the prison

authorities to deliver sealed letters to his defence counsel.  He

considered that thus any correspondence with his defence counsel had

been rendered impossible, and his defence rights considerably

restricted.  In this respect, the Presiding Judge noted that he was

competent for the control of the applicant's correspondence and had

not seen any correspondence with counsel for some time.

        Furthermore, the Regional Court, at the trial, ordered

the applicant's detention on remand to continue.

        On 10 November 1986 a visit of the applicant's life companion,

a witness for the defence, was terminated when their conversation

turned to questions of evidence at the trial.  Likewise, on 11

November 1986 the Presiding Judge stopped part of the applicant's

letter of 31 October 1986 to his life companion and took it to the

file on the ground that it referred to the criminal proceedings, in

particular to the testimony to be given by her.

        On 19 November 1986 the President of the Salzburg Regional

Court, referring to the applicant's complaint of 18 August 1986,

instructed the Director of the Salzburg Prison about the procedure

concerning correspondence of remand prisoners with defence counsel, in

particular S. 45 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Straf-

prozeßordnung) in the version in force at that time (amendment in

force as from 1 January 1988).  In the circumstances of the

applicant's case, his correspondence with his defence counsel was not

subject to any further control and could, after control for prohibited

money or other objects, be sealed in the presence of a prison officer

and then be delivered.  Any other correspondence had to be delivered

unsealed.  The applicant should be informed that this procedure would

be respected in future, as it had been respected in the past.  The

applicant was so informed on 29 November 1986.

        On 27 November 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court convicted the

applicant of theft on two counts and attempted theft on a further

count, and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.  The Regional

Court found that the applicant had broken into two cars at different

places near Salzburg on 25 October 1985 and had attempted to steal

objects from a car near Vienna on 25 April 1986.

        The Regional Court proceeded from the evidence of several

witnesses, the victims of the offences in question, who had first

recognised the applicant on criminal identification photographs and

then, at the trial, had described the car used by him.  The witnesses

had appeared to be very reliable.  Some slight divergences between

their statements in court and earlier statements before police

authorities had been explained at the trial.  The Regional Court

dismissed several requests by the defence to take further evidence.  It

considered that thereby the applicant's defence rights were not

affected as the applicant's guilt could be clearly established on the

basis of the evidence obtained at the trial.  As regards the various

requests, in particular the taking of technical and expert evidence,

the inspection of a locality, the hearing of a police officer, the

Regional Court gave detailed reasons that such evidence was

unnecessary and irrelevant to the case.

        After pronouncement of the judgment the applicant lodged a

plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) and an appeal against

sentence (Berufung).

        It appears from records of the Salzburg Prison that the

applicant further corresponded with his defence counsel in December

1986 and in the beginning of 1987.

        On 28 January 1987 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed various

complaints of the applicant, insofar as they concerned alleged

irregularities by the criminal courts.  The Court of Appeal found in

particular that the Investigating Judge had not violated the

applicant's rights of defence.  The applicant had not substantiated

his claim that the Investigating Judge had impaired the applicant's

correspondence with his official defence counsel: there were no such

indications in the file, e.g. submissions of counsel.  The assessment

of evidence, including alleged irregularities concerning the

identification photographs, was the task of the trial court.

Furthermore, there was nothing to indicate that the Presiding Judge

had hindered the defence in putting questions to the witnesses: it

appeared from the record of the trial that at the end of a testimony

no further questions had been put to the witness concerned.  Moreover,

the Court of Appeal confirmed that the visit of the applicant's life

companion had been lawfully terminated and that part of his letter to

her had been lawfully stopped.

        On 20 March 1987 the applicant filed the reasons for his plea

of nullity and for his appeal.  Referring to S. 281 para. 1 (4) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, he submitted in particular that he had

been refused to comment immediately upon the statement of one witness,

and had subsequently not been invited to comment upon the statements

of each witness.  Furthermore, the applicant's defence rights had been

impaired in that during the period from 18 August until 27 November

1986 he could not correspond with his defence counsel.  He described

the incident on 18 August and alleged that the contents of the

envelope concerned had been controlled before he sealed it.  He also

complained about the refusal to take further evidence.  The applicant's

further submissions concerned the reasoning of the judgment.

        On 5 May 1987 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof)

rejected the plea of nullity.  The Supreme Court considered that the

applicant's rights of defence had not been unduly restricted.

        The Supreme Court considered in particular that the applicant

had been able to put questions to the witnesses and comment

immediately upon their statements; only a further general comment upon

the statement of a witness had been correctly refused.  The alleged

problems concerning the applicant's correspondence with his defence

counsel had not been subject of a request at the trial and could not

therefore be raised under S. 281 para. 1 (4) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.  The Regional Court's taking of evidence and the reasoning

of its judgment could not be objected to.

        On 26 May 1987 the Supreme Court, upon the applicant's

appeal, reduced his sentence to two years and nine months'

imprisonment.

        In the course of his detention on remand, twice disciplinary

sanctions of fifteen and ten days' solitary confinement (strenger

Hausarrest) respectively had been imposed on the applicant.  His

complaints in this respect were dismissed by the President of the

Salzburg Regional Court.  Furthermore, in May and June 1987 the

President of the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed various complaints

lodged by the applicant about the conditions of his detention, inter

alia, about the delayed delivery of letters, several refusals of

particular magazines as well as other material.  The applicant's

complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)

concerning some of these matters was dismissed in summary proceedings.

In June 1988 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

rejected the applicant's complaints in this respect on the ground that

he was no longer a remand prisoner.

        On 7 September 1988 the Federal Ministry of Justice

(Bundesministerium der Justiz) dismissed complaints concerning the

applicant's detention, inter alia, the prison food, the length of

visits, and the delayed delivery of mail.  The applicant's

constitutional complaint was dismissed in summary proceedings.  On 6

February 1989 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's

request for free legal aid to pursue these complaints on the ground

that they lacked any prospect of success.

        On 16 September 1988 the Federal Ministry of Justice dismissed

the applicant's complaint that on 29 November 1987 a letter to his

mother had been stopped.  The Ministry found that the letter contained

instructions to the applicant's mother to send various goods and money

to several other prisoners.  The applicant had thus intended to trade

in goods which would have contravened the prison order.  At the same

date numerous other complaints of the applicant concerning other

detention matters were also dismissed.

        On 13 November 1988 the applicant addressed a complaint

marked "private" to the Federal Minister of Justice, which was

returned to him on 17 November 1988, acceptance having been refused.

On 29 November 1988 a Member of Parliament, upon the applicant's

request, transmitted the submissions in question to the Federal

Minister of Justice, who passed them on for further action.  The

letter in reply from the Member of Parliament to the applicant, dated

30 November 1988, was opened by a prison officer and controlled before

delivery.

        On 12 May 1989 the Krems Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings against the

prison officer who had opened the above letter from the Member of

Parliament.  The Regional Court found that under S. 90 of the

Enforcement of Sentences Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz) only letters to

privileged addressees, inter alia, Members of Parliament, were exempted

from any control, whereas any incoming mail could be opened.

        On 9 June 1989 the Federal Ministry of Justice dismissed the

applicant's complaint that mail addressed to the applicant by the

European Commission of Human Rights had been opened.  The Ministry,

referring to S. 90 of the Enforcement of Sentences Act, considered that

even correspondence from privileged addressees such as the Commission

had to be opened in order to stop unlawful sending of money or other

objects.

        The applicant also unsuccessfully filed numerous applications

to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges, prison and

police officers and the witnesses involved in the criminal proceedings

against him.

        The applicant served his sentence until 24 March 1989.  His

requests for conditional release at earlier dates had remained

unsuccessful.

B.      Relevant domestic law and practice

        S. 45 para. 4 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure

(Strafprozeßordnung) in the version in force until 1 January 1988

concerns correspondence of a remand prisoner with his defence counsel.

It provides that the correspondence of the remand prisoner with his

defence counsel is subject to control by the Investigating Judge (S.

187) only until communication of the bill of indictment, and only if

he is detained inter alia or exclusively for danger of collusion.

        S. 187 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides

that, notwithstanding S. 45 of this Code and SS. 85 and 88 of the

Enforcement of Sentences Act, remand prisoners may correspond with and

receive visits from all persons who are not likely to prejudice the

purpose of the detention on remand.  Paragraph 2 regulates limitations

on correspondence of an exceptional volume, and also provides that

letters likely to prejudice the purpose of detention or giving

rise to the suspicion that through them an offence is being committed

may be withheld, save SS. 88 and 90 para. 4 of the Enforcement of

Sentences Act on correspondence with authorities and counsel, or

letters to national bodies or the European Commission of Human Rights.

        According to S. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the

Investigating Judge is in general competent for the control of

correspondence and all other orders and decisions concerning the

contact of remand prisoners with the outside world.

        S. 90 of the Enforcement of Sentences Act (in the version in

force until 1 January 1988), which also applies to remand prisoners

(S. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), provides in paragraph 1

that all correspondence of convicted prisoners may be controlled to

the extent necessary to hold back unlawfully sent money or other

objects.  According to paragraph 4 of this provision, correspondence

with and from particular bodies and persons mentioned in S. 88

para. 1 (1), (2) and para. 2, for instance domestic public

authorities, the European Commission of Human Rights, lawyers, defence

counsel, should not be held back.

        S. 119 et seq. of the Enforcement of Sentences Act govern the

prisoners' right of complaint about conditions of their detention

(S. 119) or acts of prison staff allegedly violating their rights

(S. 120 para. 1).  Complaints have to be lodged with the competent

officer of the prison concerned (S. 120 para. 2).  Such complaints are

examined by the Director of the Prison, or by the Federal Ministry of

Justice, if the complaint is directed against the Director of the

Prison and he did not give redress (S. 121).  The decisions of first

instance are subject to review by the Administrative Court and the

Constitutional Court in accordance with SS. 130 and 144 of the Federal

Constitution (Bundesverfassungsgesetz).

        On 30 June 1983 the Director of the Prison at the Salzburg

Regional Court issued an instruction (Dienstverfügung) according to

which the inmates of that prison had to hand in their correspondence,

without exception, unsealed to the division officer, and likewise all

incoming correspondence would be handed to them opened.  Remand

prisoners' correspondence with their defence counsel, provided they

have received the bill of indictment, could, after control of their

contents for unlawful sendings of money or other objects, be sealed in

the presence of a prison officer and handed over.  Correspondence from

counsel would be opened in the presence of a prison officer and, after

control for unlawful sendings of money or other objects, the prisoner

concerned could keep it.  Prison officers had to control mail to the

extent necessary to stop unlawful sendings of money or other objects.

The instruction further stated that the contents of remand prisoners'

correspondence could only be censored by the Investigating Judge;

however, the prison officer had to control it in respect of unlawful

enclosures.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that

he was unlawfully detained on remand following unlawful extradition

proceedings.  He alleges that the warrant of arrest of May 1986

contained factual statements which were at variance with the results

of the investigations.

2.      The applicant further complains under Article 6 paras. 1, 2

and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention about his conviction by the

Salzburg Regional Court on 27 November 1986 and also about the conduct

of the criminal proceedings concerned.

        He submits that the presumption of innocence was violated

during the investigation of the case.  Some formulations of the court

decisions concerning his detention on remand showed that he was

already considered guilty.

        He claims that he did not have a fair trial by an impartial

court and that his rights of defence were disregarded as the Salzburg

Regional Court dismissed his request to take further evidence, and

based its judgment on unproven and incorrect facts and assumptions.

He also submits that he was not allowed to comment immediately on the

statements of each witness.

        He finally complains that the preparation of his defence was

restricted by the refusal of uncontrolled correspondence with his

defence counsel prior to the trial.

3.      The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention

about the control and delays in prison of his correspondence with his

defence counsel, his relatives, with public authorities and a Member

of Parliament.

4.      The applicant considers that he did not have an effective

remedy before a national authority, as required by Article 13 of the

Convention, in respect of the control of his correspondence, and

generally regarding complaints concerning the prison conditions.

5.      The applicant moreover complains under Article 25 para. 1 in

fine of the Convention that the Austrian authorities hindered the

effective exercise of his right to petition the Commission by

withholding necessary documents, depriving him of the application

form, and opening letters to him by the Commission.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 5 December 1986 and

registered on 20 May 1987.

        On 14 December 1989 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them

to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

        The Government's observations were submitted on 30 March 1990.

        On 18 May 1990 the Commission decided to grant the applicant

legal aid.

        On 28 May 1990 the time-limit for submission of the

applicant's observations in reply was suspended pending determination

of his representative in the proceedings before the Commission.  His

observations were submitted on 20 December 1990.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that his extradition and subsequent

detention on remand in Austria were unlawful.  This complaint relates

to Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention which provides:

"1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

person.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in

the following cases and in accordance with a procedure

prescribed by law: ...

        (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person

effected for the purpose of bringing him before the

competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having

committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered

necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing

after having done so; ..."

        The Commission finds that according to the warrant of arrest

issued by the Salzburg Regional Court in May 1986 as well as the

Regional Court's subsequent decisions on the applicant's detention on

remand, there was a strong suspicion that he had committed several

criminal offences, in particular theft, and that there was a danger of

repetition.  In its decisions the Regional Court, referring to the

relevant provisions of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, duly

considered the results of the investigations and trial, respectively.

        There is nothing in the applicant's submissions, in particular

as regards the preceding extradition procedure, to suggest that his

detention on remand was not lawful and not in accordance with a

procedure prescribed by Austrian law, within the meaning of

Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.

        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2.      The applicant further complains under Article 6 paras. 1, 2

and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3-b , 6-3-c, 6-3-d) of the

Convention about his conviction by the Salzburg Regional Court on 27

November 1986 and also about the conduct of the criminal proceedings

concerned.

a.      With regard to the judicial decision of which the applicant

complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with

Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the

observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the

Convention.  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an

application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by

domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have

involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set

out in the Convention (see e.g.  No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3

pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77;

No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

b.      The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the

Convention that in the course of the investigation proceedings he was

already treated as guilty.

        The Commission, assuming that the applicant has exhausted

domestic remedies in this respect, considers that the decisions and

measures taken by the Austrian authorities against the applicant

before his conviction do not disclose any disregard of the principle

of the presumption of innocence.  In particular, the warrant of arrest

of May 1986 as well as the Regional Court's decisions on the

applicant's detention on remand give reasons for the strong suspicion

against the applicant.  There is no formulation containing already a

finding of guilt.

c.      The applicant further complains that he did not have a fair

trial by an impartial court and that his rights of defence were

disregarded on the grounds that the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed

his request to take further evidence, and based its judgment on

unproven and incorrect facts and assumptions.  He also submits that he

was not allowed to comment immediately on the statements of each

witness.

        The Commission finds that the conduct of the criminal

proceedings by the Salzburg Regional Court leading to the applicant's

conviction do not disclose any appearance of lacking impartiality.

The Regional Court's taking and assessment of evidence does not appear

incorrect or arbitrary.  In particular, the refusal to take further

evidence as requested by the applicant was based on the lack of

relevance of the evidence concerned and cannot be objected to under

Article 6 (Art. 6).

        Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the defence

rights of the applicant, who was represented by counsel, concerning

the questioning of witnesses in court were restricted, or that he did

not have a fair opportunity to put forward his arguments in respect of

the statements of these witnesses.

        It follows that these complaints are also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3.      The applicant complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention about control and delays in prison of his correspondence

with his relatives, with public authorities and a Member of

Parliament. Article 8 (Art. 8) provides:

"1.      Everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.      There shall be no interference by a public authority

with the exercise of this right except such as is in

accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public safety

or the economic well-being of the country, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others."

        The Commission recalls that the control of prisoners'

correspondence, while an interference with their right to respect for

correspondence, is not in itself incompatible with the Convention

(Eur.  Court H.R., Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983, Series

A no. 61, p. 38, para. 98;  Campbell v. the United Kingdom, Comm.

Report 12.7.90, paras. 41 - 48 with further references).

        The Commission notes that on 11 November 1986 the

Investigating Judge decided to stop the part of the applicant's letter

to his life companion of 31 October 1986 which referred to the trial

pending against the applicant, where his life companion was called as

a witness for the defence.  The Commission finds that this

interference could be regarded as necessary in a democratic society

for the prevention of disorder and crime, and was thus justified under

Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

        Furthermore, the Commission finds that, as the applicant's

letter of 13 November 1988, submitting a complaint to the Minister of

Justice marked "private", was returned in application of procedural

rules governing complaints by prisoners, there is no indication of a

violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

        As regards the opening of a letter from a Member of Parliament

to the applicant, the Commission, assuming exhaustion of domestic

remedies, notes that the letter in question was not stopped or delayed

in any way.  In these circumstances and having regard to Article 8

para. 2 (Art. 8-2) there is no appearance of a violation of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention.

        Furthermore, the Commission, having considered the applicant's

general complaints about delays and control of his other

correspondence with relatives and public authorities, finds that his

submissions in these respects do not disclose a violation of his right

to respect for correspondence.

        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

4.      The applicant considers that he did not have an effective

remedy before a national authority, as required by Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention, in respect of the control of his

correspondence with relatives, public authorities and a Member of

Parliament, as well as generally regarding complaints concerning the

prison conditions.

        Article 13 (Art. 13) reads as follows:

     "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in

this Convention are violated shall have an effective

remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that

the violation has been committed by persons acting in an

official capacity."

        The Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) secures an

effective remedy before a national "authority" to anyone claiming on

arguable grounds to be the victim of a violation of his rights and

freedoms as protected in the Convention (cf.  Eur.  Court H.R.,

Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no.

139, p. 11, paras. 25, 27).

        In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant's

complaints, insofar as they are related to Convention rights, do not

show any appearance of a violation and cannot, therefore, be regarded as

arguable claims within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13).

        This part of the application is, therefore, also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

5.      Moreover, the applicant complains that prior to the trial

he was denied uncontrolled correspondence with his defence counsel,

and that thereby the preparation of his defence was impaired.  He

refers in particular to the stopping of a sealed letter to his defence

counsel on 18 August 1986.  He invokes Articles 6 and 8 (Art. 6, 8) of

the Convention.  Furthermore, he claims that he did not have an

effective remedy in this respect, as required by Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention.

        He also complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

that correspondence from the Commission was opened by the prison

authorities.

a.      As regards the applicant's complaint about the stopping of a

sealed letter to his defence counsel on 18 August 1986, the Commission

notes that the President of the Salzburg Regional Court did not take a

formal decison upon the applicant's complaint about this incident.  On

19 November 1986 he sent instructions to the Director of the Salzburg

Prison concerning the legal provisions on the control of

correspondence from remand prisoners, and their application in the

applicant's case.  He assumed that these rules would be correctly

applied in the future, as in the past.  The applicant was informed

about the letter on 29 November 1986.

        In these circumstances, the Commission, taking in particular

the delayed information of the applicant into account, considers that

the action taken by the President of the Salzburg Regional Court upon

the applicant's specific complaint did not give redress.  With regard

to the control of his correspondence with defence counsel, the

applicant may, therefore, still claim to be a victim of a violation of

his Convention rights within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1

(Art. 25-1) of the Convention.

b.      The Government contend that the applicant failed to exhaust,

as required under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the remedies

available to him under Austrian law with regard to his complaint about

the control of his correspondence with his defence counsel.  The

Supreme Court had not examined this complaint lodged in the

applicant's plea of nullity on the ground that it had not been raised

at the trial.

        The Commission recalls that the burden of proving the

existence of available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the

State invoking the rule (cf.  Eur.  Court H.R., Deweer judgment of 27

February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 15, para. 26).

        The Commission notes that the applicant did not only lodge a

complaint with the President of the Salzburg Regional Court about the

stopping of the letter to his defence counsel.  He also raised the

issue of correspondence with counsel and resulting restrictions of his

defence rights at the trial on 30 October 1986.  The Government did

not show to what extent the applicant could have made a further

particular request at the trial, which could have been subject to

review by the Supreme Court.

        The Commission finds that in this respect the applicant has

exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under Austrian law.

c.      The Commission considers that the applicant's complaints about

the control of his correspondence with his defence counsel and with

the Commission as well as the absence of an effective remedy in this

respect raise difficult issues of fact and law which are of such

complexity, that their determination should depend upon a full

examination of the merits.  These complaints cannot, therefore, be

declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.

2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.  No other ground for declaring them

inadmissible has been established.

6.      The Commission has further considered the applicant's

(Art. complaint under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) in fine of the

Convention that the Austrian authorities hindered the effective

exercise of his right to petition the Commission by withholding

necessary documents, depriving him of the application form, and

opening letters to him from the Commission.  Article 25 para. 1

provides: (Art. 25-1)

"The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary

General of the Council of Europe from any person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming

to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting

Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that

the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been

lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of the

Commission to receive such petitions.  Those of the High

Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake

not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."

        As the Commission has found that the matter of opening of its

letter to the applicant by the prison authorities raised a prima facie

issue under Article 8 (Art. of the Convention, it considers that the

applicant's complaint under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) should also

be further examined.

        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints about

        the control of his correspondence with his defence counsel and

        resulting restrictions on his defence (Articles 6 and 8

        (Art. 6, 8) of the Convention) and the absence of an

        effective remedy in this respect (Article 13 (Art. 13) of

        the Convention), as well as his complaint about the opening

        of a letter from the Commission (Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

        Convention), without prejudging the merits;

        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application;

        DECIDES TO EXAMINE FURTHER whether the applicant was

        hindered in the effective exercise of his right of petition

        under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) in fine of the Convention.

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)