[align=left]During the period from 16th December, 1965, to 13th January, 1966, the
applicant made another application for release pending trial which was
refused by the Linz Regional Court on 28th December, 1965. He also
requested once more that his case should be transferred to the
jurisdiction of another court and submitted a plea of nullity for
safeguarding the law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes)
by which he accused public prosecutors and judges of having violated
the law. He was informed on 10th January, 1966, that his plea of
nullity would be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General's
Office (Generalprokuratur) when final judgment had been passed against
him.

The trial continued on 13th January, 1966, and was terminated on 14th
January. On that day he was convicted for fraud with respect to counts
I A (78 purchasers) and I B 1 (A.) of the indictment and sentenced to
three years' severe imprisonment (hartes Lager) once every three
months. He was acquitted of the other charges.

The Court also decided that the applicant should be released from
detention on a solemn undertaking in accordance with Article 191 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The Office of the Public Prosecutor lodged
an appeal (Beschwerde) against this decision which was allowed by
decision of the Linz Court of Appeal, dated 2nd March, 1966. The Court
decided that the grounds for the applicant's detention on remand
continued to obtain (danger of his absconding and committing further
offenses). It appears that, under the applicable Austrian law, this
decision was taken after hearing the prosecuting authority but in the
absence of the applicant or his lawyer.

Both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the applicant, on 25th
February, and 3rd March, 1966 respectively, lodged with the Supreme
Court a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) against the conviction
and appeal (Berufung) against the sentence.

The case files were transmitted to the Supreme Court in Vienna on 9th
March, 1966, but were subsequently sent back to Linz for the Regional
Court to deal with an application for release pending appeal which the
applicant, in the meanwhile, had lodged. However, this application was
withdrawn by the applicant on 30th June, 1966.

On 27th July, 1966, the Supreme Court took a decision with regard to
the pleas of nullity and appeals mentioned above. It decided that the
Regional Court's decision should be set aside as regards the conviction
for fraud under count I B (A.) and acquittal on the charge of
fraudulent conversion, under count II (Mr. and Mrs. X.) of the
indictment, as well as regards the sentence. However, the judgment
should stand as regards the acquittal on the charges of fraud under
count I B (B.) and the conviction for fraud under count I A (78
purchasers) of the indictment. The case was accordingly sent back to
the Linz Regional Court for further hearing and decision.

On the application of the prosecuting authority the Linz Regional Court
decided on 14th September, 1966, that the proceedings against the
applicant as regards the charge of fraud under count I B (A.) and the
charge of fraudulent conversion under count II of the indictment should
be discontinued. Consequently, the only charge remaining was count I
A (78 purchasers) of the indictment for which the applicant had been
convicted but not sentenced.

In the meanwhile, the applicant had lodged a further petition for his
release pending appeal which was refused by the Regional Court of Linz
on 21st September, 1966. On appeal to the Linz Court of Appeal this
decision was confirmed on 28th September, 1966.

The applicant also made various petitions relating to the manner in
which the further hearing of his case which had been fixed for 18th
October, 1966, should be conducted. These petitions were rejected on
the ground that they could not properly be dealt with under the rules
of procedure.

On 14th October, 1966, the applicant requested that the hearing of 18th
October, should be adjourned to a later date. This request was refused
and, on 18th October, 1966, the Linz Regional Court fixed the
applicant's sentence at five years' severe imprisonment with the
additional penalty of fasting and "sleeping hard" once every three
months. The Court further decided that the period from 5th August to
23rd December, 1963, and from 15th March, 1965, to 18th October, 1966,
which the applicant had spent in detention on remand should be credited
towards his sentence.

On 3rd November, 1966, the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a
plea of nullity and an appeal against this decision of the Regional
Court.

Subsequently, further applications for release from detention were
lodged by the applicant on 21st, 27th and 30th January, 1967. The
Regional Court of Linz refused these applications on 15th February,
1967. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Linz Court
of Appeal which decided on 15th March, 1967, that the appeal should be
allowed. The Court ordered that the applicant should be released on a
solemn undertaking in accordance with Article 191 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on the ground that, having been kept in detention
on remand for two-and-a-half years, it could no longer be assumed that
he would abscond in order to avoid prosecution. The applicant was
released accordingly on 20th March, 1967.

It appears that, on 15th February, 1968, the Supreme Court heard the
applicant's plea of nullity and appeal. It dismissed the plea of
nullity, but reduced the sentence to two years' and nine months' severe
imprisonment.

2. Proceedings for fraudulent bankruptcy (19 Vr 1566/64)

In 1964, while the charges under the proceedings set out above were
still being investigated, the applicant was suspected of having
committed further offenses with regard to his obligations towards his
creditors.

It appears that the purchasers of plots had instituted civil
proceedings against the applicant to recover their purchase monies
after it had been clear that he was not able to transfer to them the
titles of various plots. By the end of April 1964 a large number of
them were in possession of final judgments on the basis of which they
were entitled to execution against the applicant. The applicant was
accused of having prevented some of these creditors from obtaining
satisfaction of the sums owing to them.

On the application of the Public Prosecutor's Office at Linz the
investigating judge decided on 31st August, 1964, that preliminary
investigations (Voruntersuchung) should be instituted against him. The
judge further decided that these charges should be dealt with
separately from the charges of fraud referred to above.[/align]