[align=left]THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The Applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1916 and residing in
Vienna.

From his statements and from documents submitted by him it appears
that, on .. April, 1966, he was arrested on suspicion of having
committed fraud (Betrug) and defamation (Verleumdung) and remanded in
custody in accordance with Articles 175, paragraph (1) No. 4, and 180,
paragraph (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung).

He states that on .. April, 1966, he was taken before the competent
investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter). Subsequently, he made an
application to the Regional Court (Landesgericht) at Klagenfurt for his
release pending trial. This application was dismissed on .. May; 1966,
on the ground that there existed a danger of his absconding and
committing further offences (Fluchtgefahr und Wiederholungsgefahr). The
Applicant states that he lodged an appeal (Beschwerde) against this
decision with the Judges' Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Court
at Klagenfurt which was dismissed on .. May, 1966, and that he lodged
with the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Graz a further appeal
(weitere Beschwerde) against the Judges' Chamber's decision. According
to the Applicant, his further appeal was dismissed on .. June, 1966,
the Court of Appeal deciding that although there existed no danger of
his absconding, the danger of his committing further offences
persisted. The Applicant then apparently made an appeal against this
decision to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), which was
rejected by the Court of Appeal of Graz on the ground that such appeal
to the Supreme Court did not lie under Austrian law. The Applicant
further states that he also complained to the Minister of Justice and
the President of the Regional Court about his detention on remand and
that the latter promised to examine his complaint.

It appears that, on .. September, 1966, the office of the Public
Prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft) at Klagenfurt served on the Applicant
the bill of indictment (Anklageschrift). He states that he submitted
a list of witnesses whom he wished to have summoned to give evidence
at the trial. This list was later supplemented by the names of further
witnesses for the defence.

On .. November, 1966, the Applicant was brought to trial before the
Regional Court of Klagenfurt sitting at Spittal/Drau. He states that
only three of the witnesses named by him appeared in court. He also
alleges that he was hindered in his defence. He explains that he had
been in contact with a lawyer in Vienna who had invited him to send a
statement concerning his case. However, the investigating judge at
Klagenfurt had refused his permission to transmit this statement on the
ground that the Applicant was not allowed to write any letter relating
to the proceedings against him. The Applicant further explains that
shortly before the trial he had been informed that another lawyer from
Spittal had been appointed to represent him at the trial. This lawyer
had then informed the Applicant that he was not able properly to defend
him because he himself had just learned of his appointment.
Consequently, the Applicant had prepared a seventeen page statement
which he intended to deliver at the trial, but the presiding judge
prohibited him from delivering this document and defending himself in
person.

The Applicant states that, on .. November, 1966, the Regional Court
decided to adjourn the case.

It appears that the matter was heard again on .. January, 1967. On that
day the Regional Court of Klagenfurt convicted the Applicant for
defamation an fraud and sentenced him to ten months' severe
imprisonment with the additional penalty of "sleeping hard" (hartes
Lager) once a month. The Applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a plea
of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) alleging only that he was wrongly
convicted (Article 281, No. 9a of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The
Public Prosecutor's office, in turn, appealed (Berufung) against the
sentence imposed by the Regional Court. On .. June, 1967, the Supreme
Court rejected both the appeal and the plea of nullity.[/align]