Search
document

Document text Analytics

HAASE AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 7412/76 • ECHR ID: 001-49224

Document date: April 18, 1978

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

HAASE AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 7412/76 • ECHR ID: 001-49224

Document date: April 18, 1978

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

referred to as the "convention");

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention

relating to the application lodged by Dieter Haase against the Federal

Republic of Germany (No. 7412/76);

Whereas on 13 October 1977, the Commission transmitted the said report

to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the convention

has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European

Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the

convention;

Whereas in his application lodged on 22 January 1976, the applicant

complained of various aspects of his detention on remand, and the

allegedly unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him,

in particular the preliminary judicial investigation, submitting that

Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), and Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1) of the convention had been violated and that, at almost all

relevant stages of the domestic proceedings, his defence had been

hampered because his representatives had not been afforded sufficient

access to the file;

Whereas the Commission on 12 December 1976 declared the application

admissible and in its report, adopted on 12 July 1977, it considered

the complexity of the case, the handling of the case by the

authorities, the conduct of the applicant, whether his defence was

interfered with in that his lawyers lacked sufficient access to the

case files and whether the applicant's detention was unjustified or

excessive;

Whereas in its report the Commission expressed the opinion by 8 votes

against 5 that however regrettable the length of the criminal

proceedings against the applicant may have been, there was no

violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the convention on

account of the length of the proceedings, by 10 votes against 3 that

there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.b (art. 6-3-b) of the

convention and by 10 votes against 3 that there was no violation of

Article 5, paragraphs 1.c and 3 (art. 5-1-c, art. 5-3) of the

convention;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the convention;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1) of the convention,

Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant