[align=left](a) The respondent Government first referred again to its legal
arguments on the interpretation of Article 6, paragraph (1), of the
Convention which it submitted in the Neumeister Case. It stressed, in
particular, that the time to be considered in connection with this
provision began when the indictment was preferred.

The respondent Government further submitted that separate handling of
the two proceedings against the applicant served to accelerate the
proceedings for fraud (19 Vr 394/63) which it considered to be the main
proceedings. In these proceedings the indictment was preferred on 15th
April, 1965, the preliminary investigation having been instituted on
16th July, 1963. Consequently, the investigations lasted for about a
year and a half only, while the proceedings themselves after the
indictment had been preferred took over two years and a half. This
delay was caused by the applicant himself who made numerous and
generally hopeless applications. In particular, the applicant himself
repeatedly requested that the trial should be cancelled or adjourned.

The respondent Government further stated that the new trial had been
immediately fixed by the Linz Regional Court after the files had been
returned to the Supreme Court following its decision of 27th July,
1966, by which certain parts of the Regional Court's judgment of 14th
January, 1966, had been set aside. Subsequently, the Public
Prosecutor's Office had requested that proceedings on certain charges
should be discontinued and this measure also served only to accelerate
the proceedings.

The respondent Government further submitted that the criminal
proceedings for fraudulent bankruptcy (19 Vr 1566/64) were dependent
on the outcome of the proceedings for fraud.

(b) The applicant submitted that the time to be considered in
connection with Article 6, paragraph (1), of the Convention began when
the preliminary investigation was instituted against him. This
represented an important step in the proceedings by which a person was
being put on trial for having committed criminal offenses and
corresponded to the "criminal charge" in the Anglo-American law. After
preliminary investigations have been instituted it is not possible for
the prosecution simply to discontinue the proceedings, but a judicial
decision is necessary.

The applicant stated that the proceedings for fraud were unduly
prolonged in that, in one period from 13th to 16th December, 1965, all
witnesses has been heard and all applications had been dealt with. None
of the witnesses were resident outside Linz and no witness had held up
the proceedings. Furthermore, the applications made by the applicant
himself had not caused any delay. The files had always remained in Linz
and the Court of Appeal was only ten minutes' walk away from the
Regional Court.

The applicant further submitted that, as regards the proceedings for
fraudulent bankruptcy, no action had been taken so far and it was not
likely that any action would be taken.

3. As to Article 6, paragraph (1), of the Convention with regard to the
proceedings before the Constitutional Court (right to a fair hearing
before an independent and impartial tribunal)

(a) The respondent Government submitted that Article 6, paragraph (1),
of the Convention did not guarantee a right to proceedings before a
court of law but simply laid down basic rules of procedure where
national legislation makes provisions for judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, the term "civil rights" within the meaning of the
aforesaid provision should be interpreted as simply referring to the
national legal system.

The respondent Government further submitted that the Regional Real
Property Sales Commission was organised in accordance with the
principle of collective responsibility as provided in Article 133,
paragraph (4), of the Federal Constitutional Act
(Bundesverfassungsgesetz) and was clearly an independent and impartial
authority.

However, Article 6, paragraph (1), of the Convention was not applicable
to proceedings before the Real Property Sales Commission. When
considering the question what is meant by the provision in Article 6,
paragraph (1), relating to "the determination of civil rights and
obligations" reference must be made to the French text which reads as
follows: "contestations sur des droits et obligations de caractère
civil." In this context "contestations" could only relate to disputes
(Streitigkeiten) as regards matters concerning the relations between
parties who are on an equal footing but not such concerning the
subordination of persons to the state. In this connection, the
respondent Government referred to the Commission's decisions on the
admissibility of Applications Nos. 423/58 (Collection of Decisions,
Vol. 1), 1329/62 Yearbook V. p. 208), and 1931/63 (Collection of
Decisions, Vol. 15, p. 8).

The respondent Government submitted that the proceedings instituted by
the applicant before the Real Property Sales Commission were not aimed
at clarifying matters between himself and the sellers of the land in
question. Instead, the object of these proceedings was to obtain a
decision from a public authority on the question as to whether or not
the transfer of title to the property concerned was compatible with
certain public interests. The respondent Government concluded that such
proceedings do not involve the "determination of civil rights" within
the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1), of the Convention. This
question resulted from the fact that the appeal to he Constitutional
Court constituted an extraordinary remedy under Austrian law. The
decisions of the Regional Real Property Sales Commission were final
decisions on the merits leaving only the possibility of a
constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court by alleging the
violation of constitutional rights.

The applicant further submitted that the decisions of the Regional Real
Property Sales Commission violated Article 6, paragraph (1), of the
Convention, since it was not taken by impartial judges. Furthermore,
the decision of the Constitutional Court also violated the aforesaid
provision since this Court failed to deal with the question of bias on
the part of certain members of the Real Property Sales Commission.

The applicant finally submitted that the proceedings concerned involved
the determination of his civil rights within the meaning of Article 6,
paragraph (1), of the Convention. These proceedings dealt with the
question whether or not a legal condition which was stipulated in a
contract was fulfilled. The contract had been made between the parties
and simply required the approval of the authority concerned to the
effect that agricultural concerns would not be interfered with.

4. As to Article 5, paragraph (4), of the Convention in regard to the
proceedings concerning application for release pending trial (right of
a detained person to take proceedings for a decision by a court on the
lawfulness of his detention)

(a) During the oral hearing before the Commission the applicant also
made complaints in regard to the procedure followed in deciding on
application for release pending trial. He alleged that Article 5,
paragraph (4), of the Convention was violated by the fact that the
prosecuting authority was heard by the courts but neither he nor his
lawyer were allowed to be present when the court took a decision on the
lawfulness of his detention on remand. Consequently there were no
"proceedings" within the meaning of the said provision and the
principle of "equality of arms" was violated, in particular, where the
order for the applicant's release was set aside on appeal by the Public
Prosecutor's Office.[/align]