[align=left]
After charges of fraud had also been laid against the applicant by
several buyers of plots, the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter)
at Linz, on 30th July, 1963, issued a warrant for his arrest, in
accordance with Article 175, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph 4, of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) under which a warrant
of arrest may be issued where there are special reasons to fear that
the accused will commit further offenses. In the present case the
investigating judge found that this condition was fulfilled owing to
the fact that the applicant had continued to offer plots of land for
sale although he knew that the Real Property Sales Commission had
refused to approve the contract of 6th February, 1962, between himself
and Mr. and Mrs. X.

On 5th August, 1963, the applicant was arrested at Linz and remanded
in custody in accordance with Article 175, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph
4, and 180, paragraph (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order
remanding him in custody was later extended to cover the ground
mentioned in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph (1) of Article 175, namely
that there was also the danger of the applicant's suppressing evidence.

The applicant made an application for release pending trial
(Haftbeschwerde) which was dismissed by the Judges' Chamber of the
Regional Court (Ratskammer des Landesgerichts) of Linz on 4th
September, 1963. His appeal to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht)
at Linz was rejected on 23rd September, 1963. Both courts considered
that the grounds for the applicant's detention on remand continued to
obtain.

The applicant made a further application for release pending trial to
the investigating judge which was refused on 7th November, 1963, and
his appeal to the Judges' Chamber of the Regional Court of Linz was
rejected on 19th November, 1963. The applicant then lodged with the
Court of Appeal at Linz a further appeal against the decision of the
Judges' Chamber and at the same time submitted evidence to the effect
that he had taken measures for guaranteeing any claims for the
restitution to the buyers concerned of their purchase monies. In fact,
the applicant had inscribed the priority ranking of a mortgage on
property owned by him at St. Peter in the Land Registry and this entry
should be effective until 4th October, 1964. On 19th December, 1963,
the Linz Court of Appeal decided that the applicant should be released
from detention on giving his solemn undertaking in accordance with
Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision states
that, where an accused is released from detention on remand, the
investigating judge may require him to undertake not to leave his place
of residence without authorization before the final termination of the
proceedings against him, nor to conceal himself nor to do anything
which might impair the investigation of the case.

The applicant was accordingly released on 23rd December, 1963, after
having made a solemn undertaking in accordance with the above
provision.

In the meanwhile, further buyers of plots had laid charges against the
applicant and, during 1964 and early 1965, the investigations were
continued. In August 1964 the applicant also took proceedings with a
view to transferring his case to the jurisdiction of another court but
without success.

By indictment of 13th April, 1965, the Public Prosecutor's Office at
Linz charged the applicant as follows:

I. having falsely pretended, between 3rd November, 1958, and 5th April,
1963, to be an honest real estate seller, borrower and agent with a
view to induce

A. 78 persons to acts detrimental to them, namely to make payments of
some 1.4 million Schillings, and
B. 2 other persons, i.e.
1. A.
2. B. to grant loans in a total amount of AS 89,000.- and

II. having misused the power delegated to him by a contract to dispose
of other people's property or engage a third party, by way of misusing,
with intent of profit, the authenticated power of attorney delegated
to him by Mr. and Mrs. X. on 9th August, 1962; and with having thereby
caused damage to Mr. and Mrs. X, viz.

1. on 4th October, 1962, by having inscribed a priority ranking for
mortgage of AS 600,000.- and on 28th December, 1962, by registration
of a mortgage in respect of a loan of AS 600,000.-;

2. on 5th December, 1962, by registration of a mortgage of AS
5000,000.-;

3. on 14th May, 1963, by having inscribed a priority ranking for a
mortgage of another AS 500,000.- on the real estate owned by Mr. and
Mrs. X, as recorded under Nos. 57 and 222 in the land register of
Annaberg;

4. by concluding a lease contract qualified for registration concerning
these real properties in favour of Mrs. C., his common-law wife
(Lebensgefährtin);

5. on 23rd January, 1963, by concluding a lease contract qualified for
registration in respect of the real properties owned by Mr. and Mrs.
X. in favour of the couple D.

The applicant was accordingly charged with fraud (Betrug) under
Articles 197, 200, 201 d, 203, and fraudulent conversion (Untreue)
under Article 205 c of the Criminal Code.

When submitting the indictment the said Public Prosecutor's Office also
requested that the applicant should again be remanded in custody on the
grounds laid down in Article 175, paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs 2 and
4, 180, paragraph (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This request
was based on the fact that the priority ranking of a mortgage in the
amount of two million Schillings, by which the applicant had previously
guaranteed his creditors' claims and which had been decisive for his
release on 23rd December, 1963, had expired on 4th October, 1964, and
he had failed to cause a new such ranking to be entered in the Land
Registry relating to his property at St. Peter. Furthermore, enquiries
made with credit institutions at Linz had revealed that the applicant
kept concealed considerable sums which he might use to abscond in view
of the indictment against him. Finally, if left at large, the applicant
would have an opportunity to allow the damage to become irrevocable and
to commit further offenses at an time.

When making this request for his detention, the applicant had already
been in custody since 15th March, 1965, with respect to the proceedings
against him for fraudulent bankruptcy (see below). On 12th May, 1965,
the investigating judge at Linz, pursuant to the prosecution's request,
made an order for the applicant's detention on remand with respect to
the proceedings against him for fraud and fraudulent conversion.

On 19th May, 1965, the Linz Court of Appeal took a decision rejecting
the applicant's appeal (Einspruch) against the indictment. In this
decision the Court of Appeal also decided that his detention on remand
should continue. A further appeal against this decision was withdrawn
by the applicant on 8th June, 1965.

In the meanwhile, he had made another application to the courts that
his case should be referred to a court outside the jurisdiction of the
Linz Court of Appeal. This application, submitted to the Supreme Court
(Oberster Gerichtshof) on 11th June, 1965, was refused on 8th July,
1965.

Next, the Court of Appeal at Linz was called upon to take a decision
as to the applicant's challenge of all the judges of the Linz Regional
Court. Before taking a decision the Court of Appeal made an order to
the effect that the applicant should set out in clear terms the grounds
of his challenge. In compliance with this order the authorities, on 6th
September, 1965, took a written statement from the applicant by which
he withdrew the said challenges except as regards the one District
Court Judge (Bezirksrichter), Dr. F. In this respect, his challenge was
rejected by decision of the President of the Linz Regional Court, dated
13th September, 1965.

On 3rd November, 1965, the Linz Regional Court fixed the date of the
applicant's trial for 13th December, 1965. The applicant refused to
acknowledge this date and, at the same time, made a new request for a
change of venue. He also requested that the trial should be cancelled.
By three further petitions and one submission to the Regional Court
entitled "complaint", all dated 4th December, 1965, the applicant
repeated his above requests alleging generally that the proceedings
opened against him were unlawful. On 6th December, 1965, the Regional
Court declared that his request for change of venue would not be dealt
with as the Supreme Court had already twice rejected his similar
requests. The applicant was further informed that under the applicable
law it was not possible to cancel the trial.

Consequently, the trial opened before the Linz Regional Court on 13th
December, 1965. It continued until 16th December, 1965, when the
hearing was adjourned by reason of applications made by both the
prosecuting authority and the counsel for the defence to the effect
that further evidence should be obtained. The Court also decided that
the trial should continue on 13th January, 1966.[/align]