[align=left]
During the period from September 1964 to March 1965 these charges were
investigated by the police. As more and more creditors laid charges
against the applicant the preliminary investigations were extended to
these new facts.

On 15th March, 1965, the Office of the Public Prosecutor at Linz made
a request to the investigating judge that a warrant for the applicant's
arrest should be issued and his detention on remand be ordered in
accordance with the provisions of Article 175, paragraph (1),
sub-paragraphs 3 and 4, and 180, paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The investigating judge found that there existed the danger
of the applicant's committing further offenses and on the same day made
the order requested. Consequently, the applicant was arrested on 15th
March, 1965.

On 16th March, 1965, he submitted an application by which he complained
of the unlawfulness of his detention on remand and also challenged the
entire circuit of the Court of Appeal of Linz
(Oberlandesgerichtsprengel), the courts in that circuit, as well as the
Judge of the Court of Appeal, Dr. Y. The challenges were rejected by
the Supreme Court on 1st August, 1965, by the Linz Court of Appeal on
21st April, 1965, and by the President of the Linz Regional Court on
4th May, 1965, and 20th May, 1965.

On 10th and 17th May, 1965, the applicant had also repeated his
complaints that his detention on remand was unlawful. On 16th May,
1965, the Judges' Chamber of the Linz Regional Court rejected these
complaints. The applicant lodged with the Linz Court of Appeal an
appeal against this decision which was rejected on 16th June, 1965, for
the reasons stated in the Regional Court's decision of 26th May, 1965.

As was stated above under A II 1, a statement was taken from the
applicant on 6th September, 1965, in order to clarify certain
application made by him. This required further decisions to be taken
by the Linz Regional Court and the Supreme Court (see above).

On 10th November, 1965, the Judges' Chamber of the Linz Regional Court
rejected the applicant's application for release pending trial and for
joinder of the two criminal proceedings against him. On appeal to the
Linz Court of Appeal this decision was confirmed on 9th December, 1965.

A further petition for release pending trial lodged by the applicant
on 14th December, 1965, with the investigating judge was refused on
20th December, 1965, on the ground that the danger of the applicant's
committing further offenses persisted. An appeal and further appeal to
the Regional Court's Judges' Chamber and the Court of Appeal at Linz
were rejected on 29th December, 1965, and 9th February, 1966,
respectively.

On 18th February, 1966, the applicant made a new application for
release pending trial; he also requested that his case should be
transferred to the jurisdiction of another court.

By indictment of 14th March, 1966, the applicant was charged with
having committed fraudulent bankruptcy under Article 205 a of the
Criminal Code. He made an appeal (Einspruch) against the indictment and
requested that the Supreme Court or the Vienna Court of Appeal should
give a decision on his appeal.

On 27th June, 1966, the Supreme Court rejected this request on the
ground that it had no competence to take such decision. As to his
application for a change of venue the Supreme Court decided that it
should be rejected as being ill-founded.

On 6th July, 1966, the Linz Court of Appeal confirmed the indictment.
The Court further decided that his detention on remand should continue
on the ground that the danger of his committing further offenses
persisted.

On 27th July, 1966, the Linz Regional Court and on 24th August, 1966,
the Judges' Chamber of the Regional Court rejected the applicant's
renewed applications for release pending trial.

On 15th September, 1966, the applicant again applied for his release
from detention on remand, but his application was rejected by the
investigating judge on 27th September, 1966. His appeal and further
appeal to the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal at Linz were
rejected on 27th October, 1966, and 30th November, 1966, respectively.

On 27th January, 1967, the applicant made new applications for release
pending trial and change of venue which were rejected by the Linz
Regional Court on 8th February, 1967, and by the Supreme Court on 24th
February, 1967.

As was stated above, on 20th March, 1967, the applicant was released
on a solemn undertaking.

B. Whereas in his application form, in his written submission and at
the oral hearing on 17th July, 1968, the applicant alleges violations
of:

1. Article 5, paragraph (3), in that the length of his detention on
remand was unreasonable;

2. Article 6, paragraph (1), in that he was not brought to trial within
a reasonable time;

3. Article 6, paragraph (1), in that he did not have a fair hearing
before the Constitutional Court on the question whether or not certain
members of the Regional Real Property Sales Commission at Linz had been
biased;

4. Article 5, paragraph (4), in that, by reason of the fact that the
decisions relating to detention pending trial had been taken by the
courts after hearing the prosecuting authority but in the absence of
the applicant or his lawyer, there has been no "proceedings" by which
the lawfulness of his detention was decided by a court.

Whereas the respondent Government has replied to these allegations in
its written observations of 23rd August, 1967, and at the oral hearing
on 17th July, 1968;

Whereas the arguments of the parties may be summarised as follows:

I. As regards the general objections by the respondent Government under
Article 26 of the Convention (exhaustion of domestic remedies and
observance of six months' rule), as regards B 1 and 3 above.

1. The respondent Government submitted that the applicant failed to
exhaust the remedies which are available to him under Austrian law with
regard to his complaints under Article 5, paragraph (3), of the
Convention and his complaints under Article 6, paragraph (1),
concerning the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

(a) Insofar as the allegations under Article 5, paragraph (3), are
concerned, the respondent Government first dealt with the period from
5th August to 23rd December, 1963. It contended that the applicant was
successful in invoking domestic remedies as he was released from
detention in accordance with the decision of the Linz Court of Appeal,
dated 19th December, 1963. Hence, there was no reason for his complaint
in regard to that detention.

Furthermore, this detention was terminated on 23rd December, 1963, and
the application was not lodged until 3rd July, 1965. Consequently, this
part of the application was outside the six months' period as provided
for in Article 26 of the Convention.

With regard to the subsequent period of the applicant's detention on
remand the respondent Government contended that the Commission had no
competence to examine the period after 3rd July, 1965, the date on
which the application had been lodged with the Commission. It resulted
from Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention that the Commission had
competence only to consider the period which the applicant spent in
detention on remand before he lodged his application with the
Commission.

The respondent Government then dealt specifically with the complaint
in relation to the period from 15th March, 1965 to 20th March, 1967,
which the applicant spent in detention on remand during the proceedings
for fraudulent bankruptcy. It submitted that the applicant had failed
to exhaust the domestic remedies before 3rd July, 1965, the date on
which he lodged the present application with the Commission. In this
respect, the respondent Government contended that the applicant had
failed to make an appeal against the decision of the Judges' Chamber
of the Linz Regional Court, dated 26th May, 1965.

[/align]