[align=left]
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2516/65 [1966] ECHR 4 (23 May 1966)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant, a German citizen, is at present detained in prison atBielefeld. From his lengthy statements and the numerous documentssubmitted by him, the facts of his case appear as follows:The Applicant was born in 1915 near Magdeburg and grew up in Germanyuntil his parents moved to Poland about 1930. Later he served both inthe Polish Army (1937 - 1939) and in the German Navy (1944 - 1945).After the war the Applicant remained in Germany and, in 1962, hemarried Y.In 1964, the Applicant's wife instituted divorce proceedings and, on.. April, a hearing of the parties took place before the Regional Court(Landgericht) of Bielefeld. After the hearing the Applicant left theCourt together with his wife and, on the street, he hit her on the headand she fell on the pavement. He then stabbed her with a paper knifeand wounded her with some 18 stabs in the head, neck, shoulder, breast,arm, thigh and foot. By the intervention of other persons he wasprevented from doing further injury.The Applicant was arrested on the same day and on .. April 1964, awarrant for his arrest was issued in which it was stated that he wassuspected of attempted murder. In October 1965, the Applicant wasformally charged (angeklagt) with attempted murder and, on .. November1965, he was sentenced by the Regional Court of Bielefeld to threeyears' imprisonment for dangerous assault and battery. His appeal(Revision) from this judgement was dismissed by the Federal Court(Bundesgerichtshof) on .. April 1966.The Applicant's complaints and the corresponding facts appear asfollows:I. Length of detention pending trial and pending appeal1. A warrant for the Applicant's arrest (Haftbefehl) was issued by theDistrict Court (Amtsgericht) of Bielefeld on .. April 1964. It wasstated that the Applicant was strongly suspected of attempted murderand that there was a danger that he might escape unless remanded intocustody; reasons were given for these findings.2. On .. 1965, the Applicant's lawyer, Rechtsanwalt Z. applied for thecancellation of the detention order. He submitted that the Applicantwould probably not be convicted on a charge of attempted murder (Mord)under Article 211 or attempted manslaughter (Totschlag) under Article212 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). He further pointed outthat, under Article 223a of the Code the minimum sentence for dangerousassault and battery was two months' imprisonment.This application was refused by the Regional Court on .. 1965 and, onappeal (Beschwerde) by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Hammon .. 1965. The Court of Appeal confirmed the finding of the RegionalCourt that the Applicant was strongly suspected of having attacked hiswife with an intention to kill her and stated with reference to Article120 (new version) of the Code of Criminal Procedure(Strafprozessordnung) that the length of the Applicant's detentionpending trial (at that time 13 months) was not out of proportion to thesentence which he might receive if convicted on a charge of attemptedmurder or manslaughter.The Applicant then instructed his lawyer to lodge a further appealagainst the decision of the Court of Appeal. On .. 1965, Mr. Z repliedthat no further appeal lay under Article 304, paragraph (4), of theCode of Criminal Procedure. Nevertheless, the Applicant addressedseveral petitions to the Federal Court, which by letters of ... and ...1965, informed him that it was not competent to deal with thesecomplaints.3. In the meanwhile, the Applicant had, without successa) brought criminal charges of "breach of trust in the exercise of hisduties" ("Untreue im Amt") against the investigating judge(Untersuchungsrichter), Dr. A;(b) challenged the judges of the Regional Court including theinvestigating judge on the ground of partiality and requested thetransfer of his case to another court;(c) brought criminal charges of defamation against the judges of theRegional Court and the Court of Appeal.4. On ... 1965, the investigating judge declared the preliminaryinvestigation (Voruntersuchung) closed. He stated that theinvestigation had been particularly difficult and that it had beendelayed by several petitions of the Applicant which had necessitatedthe transmission of the case-file to other authorities.5. On ... 1965, the Court of Appeal made a new order for the continueddetention of the Applicant. This decision was taken underArticle 121 (new version) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whichstates as follows:"(1) As long as no sentence imposing imprisonment or some preventiveand rehabilitation measure involving a deprivation of liberty has beenpassed, a period of remand in custody for the same offence may exceedsix months only in cases where the special difficulty or extent of theinvestigations or some other important reason renders the passing ofjudgement temporarily impossible and justifies such prolongation.(2) In the cases mentioned in paragraph (1), the warrant of arrestshall be withdrawn at the expiry of six months unless its execution issuspended under Article 116 or the Court of Appeal orders thecontinuance of the remand in custody...."-----------------------------------------------------------------------("(1) Solange kein Urteil ergangen ist, das auf Freiheitsstrafe odereine freiheitsentziehende Massregel der Sicherung und Besserungerkennt, darf der Vollzug der Untersuchungshaft wegen derselben Tatüber sechs Monate hinaus nur aufrechterhalten werden, wenn diebesondere Schwierigkeit oder der besondere Umfang der Ermittlungen oderein anderer wichtiger Grund das Urteil noch nicht zulassen und dieFortdauer der Haft rechtfertigen.(2) In den Fällen des Absatzes 1 ist der Haftbefehl nach Ablauf dersechs Monate aufzuheben, wenn nicht der Vollzug des Haftbefehls nachParagraph 116 ausgesetzt wird oder das Oberlandesgericht die Fortdauerder Untersuchungshaft anordnet....")-----------------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Appeal, considering the result of the preliminaryinvestigation and, in particular, the Applicant's own statements, foundthat he was strongly suspected of attempted manslaughter. Having regardto the sentence which he might receive and pointing out that he had nofixed address and that his marriage was ruined, the Court further foundthat there was a danger that he might escape unless remanded incustody. With regard to the length of the Applicant's detention (atthat time 16 months), the Court held that it was not out of proportionto the sentence which he might receive; in this connection, the Courtobserved that the minimum sentence for attempted manslaughter was oneyear and three months penal servitude, but that there was no reason toassume that the alleged crime of the Applicant was a particularly lightcase. Finally, the Court found that there were certain "importantreasons" within the meaning of the above Article 121, paragraph (1),of the Code of Criminal Procedure which rendered the passing ofjudgment temporarily impossible and justified the prolongation of theApplicant's detention on remand. These reasons were: the delay causedby the preparation of an expert opinion on the question of theApplicant's criminal responsibility and, secondly, the introduction bythe Applicant of several unfounded petitions.6. the indictment (Anklageschrift) was completed on ... 1965 and, on... the Applicant was committed for trial.7. The trial lasted from .. to .. November 1965.8. In its judgement of .. November 1965, the Regional Court decidedthat the period spent by the Applicant in detention pending trialshould be counted as part of his sentence.9. New orders for the continued detention (pending appeal) of theApplicant were made by the Regional Court on ... 1965, ... and ...1966, and by the Court of Appeal on ... 1966.10. The Federal Court decided on .. April 1966, in respect of theperiod which the Applicant had spent in detention during his appealproceedings (.. November 1965, until .. April 1966) that the part ofthis period which exceeded three months should be counted as part ofhis sentence.With regard to his detention pending trial and pending appeal, theApplicant now alleges violations of Article 5, paragraph (4), andArticle 13 of the Convention.II. Conviction and sentenceOn .. November 1965, the Regional Court convicted the Applicant on acharge of dangerous assault and battery. Taking into account hisprevious convictions on similar charges, the Court sentenced him tothree years' imprisonment.The Applicant introduced both an appeal (Revision) and a constitutionalappeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) from this judgement. His appeal wasdismissed by the Federal Court on .. April 1966, and his constitutionalappeal was declared inadmissible by the Federal Constitutional Court(Bundesverfassungsgericht) on ... 1966.With regard to his conviction and sentence by the Regional Court, theApplicant admits that he attacked and wounded his wife in the waydescribed above. He states, however, that he was provoked by her andcomplains:1. that the Regional Court failed to summons certain witnesses as tothe character and general behaviour of his wife;2. that his sentence was excessive;3. that the judgement is the result of a conspiracy against him whichwas motivated by his Polish origin; and4. that Rechtsanwalt Z, who had been appointed by the Court to defendhim, failed in the exercise of his duties.The Applicant alleges violations of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3),sub-paragraph (d), and Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention.III. Divorce proceedingsOn ... 1965, the Applicant's wife was granted a divorce by the RegionalCourt of Bielefeld. The Applicant's appeal (Berufung) from thisdecision is pending before the Court of Appeal. His constitutionalappeal against the judgement of the Regional Court was declaredinadmissible by the Federal Constitutional Court on ... 1966.The Applicant complains that the judges of the Regional Court refusedto summons certain witnesses on his behalf and that various lawyers whorepresented him in the divorce proceedings, failed in the exercise oftheir duties.He alleges violations of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3),sub-paragraph (d), and Article 8 of the Convention.IV. Criminal charges brought by the ApplicantVarious criminal charges were brought by the Applicant against:1. the judges of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal who wereconcerned with the criminal proceedings against the Applicant (seeParts I and II above);2. the judges of the Regional Court in the divorce proceedings (seePart III above);3. a judge of the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Bielefeld (who hadrefused the Applicant's petition that his wife should be put underguardianship);4. the Public Prosecutor who participated in the trial of theApplicant;5. another Public Prosecutor (who had refused to deal with a petitionof the Applicant on the ground that it had been drafted in improperterms);6. Mr. Z, the lawyer who defended the Applicant at his trial;7. one of the lawyers who represented the Applicant in his divorcecase;8. the Applicant's wife;9. his stepson; and10. several witnesses who had given evidence in the above proceedingsbefore the Regional Court.In all these cases, the Public Prosecutor refused to instituteproceedings and the Applicant's appeals (Beschwerden) to theAttorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt) remained unsuccessful.V. Correspondence (Article 8 of the Convention)1. On ... 1965, the Regional Court, finding that the Applicant'scorrespondence had become too voluminous, decided that he should onlybe permitted to write one letter per week. This limitation did notapply to his correspondence with his lawyer, the Office of the PublicProsecutor and the Court.With reference to its above decision, the Regional Court refused toforward 31 letters of the Applicant which were consequently returnedto him. These letters were addressed to: an uncle of the Applicant inPoland, the Federal Railways (Bundesbahn), Cardinal Jäger, the JewishReligious Community (Jüdische Kultusgemeinde), two lawyers inDüsseldorf, Countess Rosen, Mr. Mikolajewski of Düsseldorf, and 22witnesses whom the Applicant wished to call.2. In respect of three letters written by the Applicant to his unclein Poland, the Court found that they contained offensive and defamatorystatements and decided that they should consequently not be forwarded(decision of the investigating judge dated ... 1965, and decisions ofthe Criminal Chamber dated ... 1965, and ... 1966).3. Two letters which the Applicant addressed to witnesses, who had beensummonsed to give evidence at his trial, were stopped by the RegionalCourt on the ground that they might influence these witnesses (decisionof --- 1965).[/align]