[align=left]THE FACTS

A. Whereas the facts presented by the parties and apparently not in
dispute between them may be summarised as follows:

The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1921 in Hungary and
resident in Vienna. He was an insurance agent and also concerned
himself with dealings in real property.

I. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

In 1961 the applicant intended to purchase certain property in Upper
Austria from a couple named X. His plan was to divide this land up in
plots and resell it. In accordance with this plan the applicant, on
21st August, 1961, entered into a contract with X. relating to the sale
of Plot Registry No. 704 at Neubau, and on 6th February, 1962, another
contract was signed by them relating to Plot Registry Nos. 57 and 222
at Annaberg. The present application is concerned with Plots Nos. 57
and 222 at Annaberg only.

However, this contract between the applicant and Mr. and Mrs. X. never
took effect. Under Article 1 of the Act relating to the Approval of
Transactions concerning Agricultural and Forestry Land (Gesetz über die
Genehmigung des Land- und Forstwirtschaftlichen Grundverkehrs) of Upper
Austria, dated 26th May, 1954, the transfer of ownership by contract
inter vivos with regard to plots of land destined as a whole or in part
for forestry or agricultural use is subject to approval by a Real
Property Sales Commission (Grundverkehrskommission) set up for this
purpose. In pursuance of this provision the applicant, on 30th March,
1962, submitted the contract of 6th February, 1962, to the District
Real Property Sales Commission (Bezirksverkehrskommission) at Efording
for its approval. This was refused by decision of 28th September, 1962,
on the grounds that the property was acquired for speculation and would
be diverted from its established use as farmland. The applicant
appealed (Berufung) against this decision to the Regional Real Property
Sales Commission (Landesgrundverkehrskommission) at Linz. The
Commission held a non-public sitting on 12th February, 1963, and
decided personally to inspect the premises. This was accomplished on
2nd April, 1963. Subsequently, on 13 May, 1963, the Regional Commission
dismissed the appeal in a non-public session on the ground that the
conveyance contravened Article 4, paragraph (1), of the Upper Austrian
Act relating to the Approval of Transactions concerning Agricultural
and Forestry Land, which provides in substance that such conveyances
must correspond to the public interest in creating and maintaining
areas reserved for agriculture and forestry, in maintaining and
strengthening the efficiency of persons engaged in agriculture and
similar purposes. At this session certain members of the Commission who
had not been present at the previous sessions took part in the
deliberation and decision. Upon a constitutional appeal
(Verfassungsbeschwerde) lodged by the applicant with the Constitutional
Court (Verfasssungsgerichtshof) the decision of the Regional Commission
was set aside for the above reason, on 20th June, 1964.

On 3rd February, 1965, the Regional Property Sales Commission at Linz
once more dismissed the applicant's case. By the same decision the
Commission rejected the applicant's challenge of several of its members
on grounds of bias. The applicant subsequently again lodged with the
Federal Constitutional Court a constitutional appeal against this
decision. He alleged again that his constitutional rights were violated
in that the Regional Commission's decision was taken by biased members
of the Commission and, having regard to the substantive issues of the
case, was arbitrary. He stated that the bias of the Commission members
consisted in the fact that the Presiding Member had appeared as
representative of the Commission in earlier proceedings before the
Constitutional Court, that another member had been heard as a witness
in these proceedings, that another member had made a statement to the
effect that the contract could not be approved because another contract
relating to the same premises had already been approved, that yet
another member had made a statement as leading member of the Chamber
of Agriculture (Landwirtschaftskammer) for Upper Austria to the effect
that the contract should not be approved and, finally, that two members
had participated in the previous decision of the Regional Commission
rejecting his application for approval of the contract. The applicant
further alleged that the same members who had decided his case on 13th
May, 1963, decided it again on 3rd February, 1965, and this constituted
a violation of his right to a trial by a tribunal established by law
(gesetzmässiger Richter) as had been held by the Constitutional Court
in its previous decision of 20th June, 1964.

The Constitutional Court, on 27th September, 1965, dismissed the appeal
on the ground that, assuming that certain members of the Regional
Commission had in fact been biased, the applicant had no right to
challenge these members because a board does not lose its competence
to take a decision even where several of its members are biased. The
Court further held that no question as to the proper establishment of
the Commission arose as it had given a new decision on 3rd February,
1965, and had not simply continued the previous proceedings and
further, that the decision was not arbitrary.

II. Criminal proceedings

1. Proceedings for fraud etc. (19 Vr 394/63)

In the meanwhile while the proceedings before the Real Property Sales
Commission were pending, the applicant had started to divide up the
land which he considered that he had acquired from X. and to sell
separate plots to various buyers.

However, on 13th February, 1063, Mr. and Mrs. X. laid charged against
him with the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) at Linz.
They informed the Office that the applicant had fraudulently converted
to his own use the property owned by them in that he had inscribed the
priority ranking (Rangvermerkung), and the registration (Eintragung),
of various mortgages in the Land Registry (Grundbuch) relating to Plots
Registry Nos. 52 and 222 at Annaberg. Subsequently, further charges
were laid with the Public Prosecutor's Office at Linz on the ground
that the applicant had made with a number of proposed purchasers
contracts for the sale of real property which were not capable of being
put into effect.[/align]