Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12100/86

by J.G.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 17 May 1985 by

J.G. against Austria and registered on 4 April 1986 under

file N° 12100/86;

Having regard to:

- the Rapporteur's request to the respondent Government of

23 May 1986 for information under Rule 40 para. 2 (a)

of the Rules of Procedure;

- the information provided by the respondent Government on

17 June 1986 and the reply submitted thereto by the

applicant on 9 July 1986;

- the first report of December 1986 provided for in Rule 40 of

the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 2 March 1987 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and

invite them to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

27 July 1987 and the reply submitted thereto by the applicant

on 31 August 1987;

- the second Report of November 1986 provided for in Rule 40

of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows:

The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1934, is an

employee resident in Salzburg.

On 6 May 1977 the applicant was reported by the R.Z.K., an

agricultural bank, to the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) as having participated, under the influence of a

lawyer, Dr. Me, in fraudulent borrowing from a number of banks in

order to finance various firms. On 16 May 1977 the Wels Public

Prosecutor's Office instructed the Upper Austrian Regional Police

Headquarters (Landesgendarmeriekommando) to investigate.

I.

On 31 May 1977 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office applied to

the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter) at the Wels District

Court (Kreisgericht) for preliminary court inquiries (gerichtliche

Vorerhebungen) in respect of Dr. Me, the applicant and various other

persons, on suspicion of fraud according to S. 146 et seq. of the

Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). The Public Prosectutor's

Office thereby requested, inter alia, the inspection of the

applicant's accounts and business papers in various banks and credit

institutions.

On 1 June 1977 the investigating judge decided to order the

inspection of altogether 17 bank accounts relating to Dr. Me and the

applicant as well as to companies with whom these persons had had

connection. The case-file was returned to the Public Prosecutor's

Office on 3 June 1977.

On 30 August 1977 the applicant's lawyer, Dr. S, submitted his

power of attorney and also requested permission to consult the

case-file.

The investigating judge decided to inspect altogether 18

further bank accounts in Vienna, Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg,

Styria and Tyrol on 23 and 28 September 1977 and on 5, 18 and

19 October 1977.

On 13 December 1977 the applicant was given an opportunity to

make a statement before the Salzburg Federal Police Directorate

(Bundespolizeidirektion), but he declined to do so.

On 28 December 1977 the investigating judge instructed the

Economic Police (Wirtschaftspolizei) of the Federal Police Directorate

(Bundespolizeidirektion) to make inquiries.

On 13 January 1978 the Public Prosecutor's Office applied to

the investigating judge, inter alia, that the applicant, Dr. Me and a

number of other persons who were suspected of fraud should be heard by

the Upper Austrian Police Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion).

Furthermore, an order was requested to search and seize certain

minutes of executive meetings of a bank concerning bank transactions

with Dr. Me and the applicant. A search warrant was requested in

respect of a house in which it was suspected that goods of a bankrupt

electrical trading company, N, had been stored away. Finally,

the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the appointment of an expert

to examine whether Dr. Me, the applicant and other persons had

committed bankruptcy offences, in particular fraudulent or negligent

insolvency (Krida), according to S. 156 et seq. of the Criminal Code.

On 23 January 1978 the investigating judge issued a search and

seizure warrant in respect of the N company. He also ordered the

inspection of four further bank accounts.

The expert, Dr.Ma, was nominated on 26 January 1978. On the

same day the investigating judge also ordered the preparation of an

individual file which was transmitted to the expert on 30 January

1978. Upon the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office of

2 February 1978 the investigating judge ordered that the accounts of

nine companies in Upper Austria and Salzburg be seized, including the

Ha and He companies. The Public Prosecutor's Office gave as

explanation for the request that the suspected persons had as company

partners had business contacts with the companies and that it was

necessary to clarify the suspicion of fraud existing in respect of

these persons.

Dr. Ma submitted his expert opinion, which comprised 113

pages, on 30 March 1978.

On 11 April 1978 the investigating judge ordered the

inspection of two further bank accounts. He also isued a search and

seizure warrant in respect of a company in Vienna. On the same day

the applicant refused to make a statement before the Vienna General

Directorate for Public Security of the Federal Ministry for the Interior

(Generaldirektion für öffentliche Sicherheit des Bundesministeriums für

Inneres). However, on 26 April 1978, the applicant submitted a

written statement concerning the allegation of negligent insolvency.

The Vienna Economic Police and the Upper Austrian Police

Directorate submitted extensive reports on the inquiries made to the

investigating judge at the Krems District Court on 22 May 1978.

According to a file note of the Public Prosecutor's Office of

16 June 1978, a certain Mr. F, the manager of the "E-Shop" which had

rented rooms in the He company, attempted to put aside certain goods

of the "E-Shop" in view of unfulfilled contracts with the He company,

of which Dr. Me was the director. Mr. F suspected that Dr. Me had

illegally put aside impounded goods (Pfandware) to Mr. F's detriment.

Upon a report of Mr. F, the investigating judge was requested

on 19 June 1978 to hear him as witness and to undertake preliminary

inquiries against Dr. Me who was suspeced of having impeded execution

contrary to S. 162 of the Criminal Code. The judge was also requested

to hear other witnesses and to procure and inspect files. On 20 June 1978

the goods of the "E-Shop" were apparently impounded (verwahrt) and

later stored in a room in the Hotel L.

On 22 June 1978 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested

the investigating judge to seize the goods of the He company as well

as the accounts of the latter and of the "E-Shop". On the same day

the applicant was heard by the Salzburg Regional Court (Landes-

gericht). Dr. Me was apparently heard by the Wels Public Prosecutor's

Office on 26 June 1978.

On 4 July 1978 the fashion house M was searched and accounts

and goods seized insofar as they related to the He company and the

"E-Shop".

On 20 July 1978 the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the

seizure of goods in the Hotel P which apparently belonged to the

company N since it was suspected that these goods would be put aside.

On 2 August 1978 the investigating judge was requested to order

further inquiries inter alia in respect of financial transactions of

a certain Mrs. Me.

On 3 August 1978 Dr.B was appointed expert. His opinion was

submitted on 18 September 1978.

On 14 May 1979, upon statements made by a financial agent, the

investigating judge was requested to order a search of Dr. Me's

office, since Dr. Me was urgently suspected of having embezzled client

monies and to seize accounting documents. This request was executed on

7 June 1979.

On 22 May 1979 the applicant asked for permission to consult

the case-file. On 2 and 16 July 1979 he filed complaints concerning a

decision which fixed the fees for the first expert, Dr. Ma.

Thereupon, the case-file was transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal

(Oberlandesgericht) from which it returned on 30 July 1979.

In a letter of nine pages of 11 April 1980 the Wels Public

Prosecutor's Office sent to the investigating judge the bill of

indictment against Dr. Me containing charges of embezzlement,

negligent insolvency and giving false testimony. The Office also

requested the institution of preliminary inquiries against the

applicant and Dr. Me in respect of aggravated fraud, embezzlement and

negligent insolvency. Further requests concerned the separation of

the proceedings against Dr. Me, the preparation of a supplementary

expert opinion and the hearing of further witnesses.

On 24 June 1980 the bill of indictment was forwarded to Dr. Me

who, on 10 July 1980, filed an objection against it. On 2 September 1980

the case-file was transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal from

which it returned on 26 September 1980. Meanwhile, on 26 August 1980,

the investigating judge instructed the first expert, Dr. Ma, to prepare

a supplementary opinion.

A decision of the investigating judge of 4 November 1980

concerned the inclusion, or procurement, of certain files, and the

exclusion, or surrender (Abtretung), of other files. On 31 December 1980

the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested the further

exclusion of certain files and the incorporation of other proceedings.

On 11 and 12 May 1981 various witnesses were heard by the

investigating judge.

After the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) at the Wels District

Court had again instructed, on 14 May 1981, the expert Dr. Ma to prepare a

supplementary expert opinion, the latter was submitted on 1 July 1981.

On 6 July 1981 the Review Chamber apparently decided to sever

certain proceedings from the preliminary inquiries instituted against

the applicant. On 31 July 1981 the case-file was transmitted to the

investigating judge.

On 2 March 1982 Dr. Me was convicted by the Wels District

Court of embezzlement, fraudulent insolvency and giving false

testimony, and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment. The judgment

became final on 10 March 1983.

II.

On 4 May 1982, the investigating judge at the Wels District

Court decided to institute preliminary investigations against the

applicant.

Between 3 and 20 August 1982 the investigating judge heard 33

witnesses, partly locally in Salzburg. On 9 and 19 August and on

23 September 1982 the applicant was heard.

On 27 October 1982 the Vienna Economic Police submitted

extensive reports to the investigating judge.

On 10 June 1983 the General Directorate for Public Security also

submitted extensive reports to the investigating judge.

On 1 July 1983 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested

that the applicant should be questioned in detail and that a further

expert opinion should be prepared by an expert accountant.

On 23 March 1984 Mr. D and Dr. H were appointed experts and

the file was transmitted to them.

On 23 April 1985 the applicant was again questioned by the

investigating judge.

On 17 May 1985 the applicant introduced his present application

with the Commission.

Dr. H's expert opinion, comprising 98 pages, was submitted,

after repeated reminders, to the investigating judge on 14 June 1985.

On 9 July 1985, the investigating judge decided to sever

proceedings concerning four other persons. In this context the

case-file apparently had to be transmitted to the Wels Public

Prosecutor's Office. On 3 January 1986 Mr. D submitted his expert

opinion, comprising 73 pages, to the investigating judge.

III.

By bill of indictment of 19 March 1986 the Wels Public

Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant in his capacity as executive

employee with having negligently caused his insolvency and the

insolvency of the WET Company, formerly the N Company. The applicant

was additionally charged, partly as an accessory, with having

fraudulently induced the G. credit cooperative to grant loans

resulting in an overall loss of 1,097,811,14 AS. Finally, he was

charged with intentionally misrepresenting the financial position of

the WET Company in balance sheets and company reports. At the same

time the Public Prosecutor's Office apparently also requested the

discontinuation of proceedings concerning certain offences in respect

of which the inquiries had brought about insufficient results. The

bill of indictment also brought charges against Dr. Me and two other

persons.

On 5 June 1986 the bill of indictment of 19 March 1986 was

received by the investigating judge at the Wels District Court, and on

14 July 1986 by the applicant.

Meanwhile, on 9 July 1986, the applicant applied for pardon

and the termination (Niederschlagung) of the criminal proceedings

pending against him.

On 27 August 1986 a request was filed, apparently by the Wels

Public Prosecutor's Office, for severance and transfer of the

proceedings relating to a further accused H. The applicant commented

on this request on 8 September 1986.

On 1 October 1986 the case-file was transmitted to the Linz

Court of Appeal in view of a complaint by Dr. Me concerning fees. The

case-file was returned on 12 October 1986.

The case-file was then forwarded on 14 November 1986 to the

Federal Ministry of Justice. On 25 November 1986 the Federal Minister

of Justice filed a statement to the President of Austria in which

he proposed the termination of the criminal proceedings instituted

against the applicant. The file was then transmitted to the

Chancellery of the President of Austria from which it returned on

11 June 1987. On 16 June 1987 a statement was issued that the

President of Austria saw no grounds to accept the proposal of mercy

and to terminate the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted

against him which allegedly he is in no position to influence. He

submits that, while he was involved under the influence of Dr.Me in

fraudulently obtaining credits from various banks, he was a victim

rather than an accessory. The case was very complex and the

investigating judge overburdened.

He submits that in this context a bank filed a bankruptcy

petition against him and that, at a date not specified, the Chamber of

Economic Consultants therefore withdrew his licence to practise as an

economic and tax counsel. He alleges that he has suffered damage to

his health as well as financial damage on account of this undue length

of the criminal proceedings and that he will again be able to practise

as a tax consultant once the proceedings have been concluded.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 17 May 1985 and registered

on 4 April 1986.

On 23 May 1986 the Secretary to the Commission, upon

instruction by the Rapporteur pursuant to Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure, requested the respondent Government

to submit further information on the application.

The information was submitted by the Government on 17 June 1986.

The applicant's comments in reply are dated 9 July 1987.

On 2 March 1987 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit observations on its admissibility and merits, in respect

of the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 concerning the length of the

proceedings, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent Government's observations were submitted on

27 July 1987 and the reply thereto by the applicant on 31 August 1987.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The respondent Government&-

I. The facts

The Government's submissions as to the facts have been

included in THE FACTS above.

II. Requirements under Article 26 of the Convention

The Government raise no objections in respect of the

requirements under Article 26 of the Convention.

III. Admissibility and merits of the application

1. As regards the beginning of the relevant period the Government

submit that "the determination of a criminal charge" against the

applicant within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

commenced on 31 May 1977, i.e. when the Wels Public Prosecutor's

Office applied to the investigating judge at the Wels District Court

for preliminary court inquiries, requesting in particular that the

applicant's accounts and business papers in various bank institutions

be inspected.

The investigating judge ordered the inspection of various bank

accounts relating to Dr.Me and the applicant on 1 June 1977. The

applicant was informed of this decision already on 6 June 1977. He

was thereby given notice that he was the subject of inquiries for the

purpose of a criminal prosecution on suspicion of having committed

criminal offences.

2. According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs,

the reasonableness of the length of proceedings under Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention must be assessed in the light of the complexity of

the case as well as of the conduct of the applicant and the competent

authorities.

3. Typical of the present criminal case involving economic

offences are extensive business and banking aspects requiring

clarification by the investigating judge and the Police Directorate.

The judge also needed to obtain several opinions from accountancy

experts. Thus, both the scope and the nature of the facts to be

judged must be considered as being complex. An indication therefore

can be seen in the fact that the case file at present comprises 14

volumes of 500 pages each. Even the applicant referred in his

application to the Commission of 17 May 1985 to the complexity of the

facts.

The economic activities of the companies concerned had to be

traced back to 1972 and then investigated. Given the multitude of

facts, the criminal responsibility of the individual suspects had to

be accurately determined before a prosecution could be brought.

Indeed, where the inquiries brought about insufficient results, the

Public Prosecutor's Office gave extensive reasons in its bill of

indictment against the applicant for the discontinuation of the

proceedings concerned. To some extent the Court countered one of the

procedural complications resulting from the sheer size of the criminal

case by creating separate files and severing certain criminal

proceedings.

4. The applicant is not obliged to cooperate actively or provide

explanations in criminal proceedings against him. In the present case,

he at first refused to make any statements to the Police Directorate or

otherwise cooperate in clarifying the facts.

5. It is undeniable that the Wels District Court did its best to

expedite proceedings. The Court concentrated first on establishing

the criminal responsibility of the principal suspect Dr. Me. This

manner of proceeding also conformed with the applicant's intentions,

who so far has sought to justify himself as having been a victim of

Dr. Me. The severance of a complex of facts (Faktenkomplex) concerning

Dr.Me and the conclusion of these proceedings by a final judgment

would therefore also seem appropriate as being in the interest of

expediting proceedings.

6. In cases of economic offences of such magnitude the courts

are mostly dependent on the opinion of accountancy experts for an

assessment of the facts, in particular in order to establish the date

of insolvency. The action taken by the Wels District Court would thus

also appear to have been economical as being in the interest of

expediting the proceedings. It must however be admitted that the

court did not supervise the work of the experts very closely.

In view of the size of the case-file it did not fix a deadline for the

preparation of the expert opinions.

For the final expert opinion the case-file and the voluminous

accountancy papers were studied for more than a year by the experts Dr.

H and Mr. D and their colleagues. It should also be noted that the

company accounts which were found were based partly on false

valuations (Bewertungen). As a result, the balance sheets and annual

reports of the undertakings had to be redone in order to arrive at a

true picture of the financial position of the companies.

Nevertheless, the investigating judge issued several reminders

in respect of the final expert opinion. The appointment of a new

expert seemed inappropriate to the judge and could have led to further

delays in the proceedings, since the experts had already carried out

extensive preparatory work.

IV. Conclusion

In the Government's view, the unusual length of the criminal

proceedings pending to date against the applicant can still be

considered as being reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention. The Government consider that the Wels District

Court conducted this voluminous case involving economic offences

without unjustifiably delaying proceedings.

The Government therefore request the Commission to declare the

application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded or, alter-

natively, to conclude that the provisions of the Convention were

not violated in the present case.

B. The applicant&S

I. The facts

The applicant's submissions as to the facts have been

included in THE FACTS above. The applicant points out that in

the first years of the preliminary court inquiries, without any

apparent system, 41 bank accounts were inspected, seizures were carried

out in ten companies, four experts were appointed etc. The proceedings

against Dr. Me were severed because they concerned other matters.

During the first five years nothing was done in respect of the

remaining suspects. Only on 4 May 1982 was a decision taken to

institute preliminary court investigations. Only in August 1982 was

the applicant questioned for the first time by the investigating judge.

After the applicant's request of 9 July 1986 for pardon and

the termination of the proceedings, the reply was given one year later,

on 16 June 1987. During this time the proceedings before the Wels

District Court were apparently adjourned, possibly also because the

authorities failed to have copies made of the file documents forwarded

to the Chancellery of the President of Austria.

II. Admissibility and merits of the application

1. Starting point of the period to be considered under Article

6 para. 1 of the Convention is 6 May 1977 when the Wels Public

Prosecutor's Office instructed the Upper Austrian Regional Police

Headquarters to make investigations.

2. According to the constant case-law of the Convention

organs in criminal proceedings the accused is not obliged to

cooperate actively with the authorities. The applicant did not employ

the procedural possibilities available to him with the intention of

delaying the proceedings even if this may have been the result. In

the early stages of the inquiries he was not willing to give evidence

to the police in so complex a matter, since he had to assume that they

lacked the necessary economic expertise. His complaints of 2 and

16 July 1979 caused no delays, since only part of the case-file had to

be transmitted to the Court of Appeal. In any event, the Government

do not state that the applicant delayed the proceedings.

3. As the submissions under III. will demonstrate, the

authorities used uncoordinated measures which resulted in

unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. For instance, the many expert

opinions prepared demonstrate that the District Court neglected to

define the tasks of the experts properly and to formulate pertinent

questions. It also did not fix a time-limit within which the expert

opinions had to be prepared.

Moreover, by linking the criminal proceedings with those

brought against Dr. Me, considerable delays occurred which affected

the applicant. Only four years after the preliminary inquiries

commenced were the proceedings against Dr. Me severed as they related

to different facts. The Court could have realised this earlier. From

mid-1980 to mid-1981 the proceedings exclusively concerned Dr.Me.

Thereafter, five further years passed before the bill of indictment

was received by the investigating judge on 5 June 1986. If the file

was then sent to the Chancellery of the President of Austria, the

Court should have made copies thereof (reference to Eur. Court H.R.,

König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27, p. 36 para. 104).

4. Taken as a whole and objectively, the proceedings pending

against the applicant since 1977 have lasted unreasonably long within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. Insofar as the

reasons for procedural delays are not evident to the applicant, the

Government should provide corresponding clarification. However, apart

from general references to the complexity of the case, the Government

state no grounds capable of justifying the procedural delays in

question.

III. In particular the assessment of the authorities' conduct

The applicant points out that the instruction by the Wels

Public Prosecutor's Office of 16 May 1977 served no useful purpose,

since the matter was too complicated for the Regional Police

Headquarters. An expert should have been called in from the start.

The occurrences on 3 June and 30 August 1977 did not contribute to the

inquiries, the steps taken on 23 and 28 September, 19 October and

28 December 1977 were isolated and not purposeful. And as late as nine

months after the inquiries commenced was the preparation of an expert

opinion requested on 13 January 1978.

The fact that warrants for search and seizure were only issued

on 23 January, 2 February and 11 April 1978 suggests irresolution

and insufficient thought. As late as one year after the inquiries

commenced, on 19 June 1978, was the main suspect Dr. Me heard for the

first time. It is unclear what purpose the measures of 4 and

20 July and 2 August 1978 served. It is not evident why on

3 August 1978 another expert was appointed. The request for a seizure

on 14 May 1979 occurred two years after the inquiries commenced.

Various steps between 24 June and 26 September 1980, including

the appointment of an expert, concerned Dr.Me rather than the

applicant. It is not clear if the witnesses heard on 11 and

12 May 1981 could not have been heard long before. At the latest on

27 October 1982 the indictment should have been decided. It is

unclear why on 1 July 1983 the preparation of a further expert opinion

was requested. Between 9 July 1985 and 3 January 1986, and again

beween 14 July 1986 and 16 June 1987, no investigations occurred.

IV. Conclusion

The applicant points out that he has been waiting for over ten

years for the proceedings to be brought to a conclusion. As a result

he is suffering from a heart condition and from diabetes which is

threatening his eye sight. The proceedings have caused his

personal and financial ruin. He requests the Commission to declare

his application admissible.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of the length of the criminal

proceedings instituted against him in 1977 which allegedly he has been

in no position to influence. He submits that the case was complex and

the investigating judge overburdened. Throughout the proceedings the

authorities used uncoordinated measures which resulted in unnecessary

delays. He submits that his health deteriorated on account of these

proceedings. The applicant relies on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, the first sentence of which states:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled

to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Government submit that the length of the criminal

proceedings instituted against the applicant can still be considered as

being reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention. The case involved economic offences and was complex.

The investigating judge required the opinions of various experts in

order to clarify business and banking aspects of the case reaching back

to 1972 and partly to redo company accounts to the extent that these

had been based on false valuations. The applicant did not always

cooperate with the authorities. Moreover, it was in accordance with

his intentions that the proceedings against Dr. Me were dealt with

first.

The Commission considers that the applicant's complaint

concerning the length of criminal proceedings instituted and still

pending against him raises difficult questions of fact and law which

are of such complexity that its determination should depend on an

examination of the merits. The application is therefore not manifestly

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

Convention, and must be declared admissible, no other grounds for declaring it

inadmissible having been established.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without in any way

prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

A P P E N D I X

Application No. 12100/86

GARZAROLLI v. Austria

Summary of the proceedings

1 June 1977 Investigating judge at Wels District Court,

upon application of Public Prosecutor, decides

inspection of bank accounts concerning applicant

26 January 1978 Dr. Ma appointed expert, opinion submitted

after 3 months

22 May 1978 Vienna Police Direction submits reports on

applicant

4 July 1978 Goods and accounts of fashion house seized

3 August 1978 Dr. B appointed expert, opinion submitted

after 6 weeks

14 May 1979 Search of the chancellery of the co-accused

Dr. Me

24 June 1980 Bill of indictment forwarded to Dr. Me

2 March 1982 Dr. Me convicted

4 May 1982 Preliminary investigations instituted against

applicant

between

3 and 20 August 1982 33 witnesses heard

23 March 1984 Messrs. D and H appointed experts, opinions

submitted after 15 and 21 months

19 March 1986 Bill of indictment against applicant

16 June 1987 President of Austria refuses to terminate

proceedings instituted against the applicant

Menu

G. v. AUSTRIA

G. v. AUSTRIA

LEXI