CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 juin 1963

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   The Applicant, who was born in 1924 in A., is at present living in Germany. He is represented by Dr. Hans Gürtler of Vienna.   On ... 1961, the Applicant was convicted by the Regional Court of B. on charge of having, by evasion of taxes and import duties, violated the Financial Offenses Act (Finanzstrafgesetz) and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, subsequent deportation from Austria and a fine of 1 million Austrian schillings, and, in default of payment, three months imprisonment. He was also ordered to make restitution (Wertersatz) of approximately 3.5 million Austrian schillings, or in default of payment ten months imprisonment. In respect of certain parts of the original indictment, the Applicant was apparently acquitted either for lack of proof or following a withdrawal of the charges. The Court had rejected a request from the lawyer for the defence to call two witnesses named Y. and Z.   The Applicant lodged a joint plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) and appeal (Berufung) and, in respect of the former plea, invoked Article 281 (4) of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, which states as follows:   "(1) A plea of nullity may be entered ... only on the following grounds: (4) if, during the main proceedings, no decision has been taken on an application by the complainant or if an interim decision rendered against his application or opposition has disregarded or applied incorrectly laws or principles of procedure which must be observed through a procedure providing for both prosecution and defence;"   On ... 1961 the Public Prosecutor's Office of B. stated that it would make no counter-statement, and on ... 1961 the case-file was sent to the Supreme Court.   The member of the Supreme Court designated as Rapporteur transmitted the case-file to the Attorney-General's Office at the Supreme Court with the comment that, in accordance with paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was applying for a day to be fixed for a public hearing. He based his application on the ground that, in his opinion, there were "material-judicial" grounds for annulment under paragraph 281, sub-paragraph 11, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which had not been invoked in the plea of nullity) in that the trial Court had made a mistake in law in applying the provisions of Court had made a mistake in law in applying the provisions of the Financial Offenses Act instead of those of the Tax Code. He submitted that this was relevant insofar as the sentence included deportation of the accused from Federal territory, and that would be prejudicial to him;   the clauses of the Tax Code properly applicable to the case in question did not provide for such a measure.   On ... 1961, in a letter addressed to the Attorney-General, Dr. Gürtler, who had meanwhile been instructed by the Applicant, requested an oral hearing in order to submit to the Court further arguments in respect of Article 281 and to show in detail why the refusal by the lower court to hear the above witnesses obstructed the defence. It was also pointed out that the grounds of a plea of nullity mentioned in Article 281 (9 - 11) had not been clearly invoked by the Applicant's former counsel and that, according to Article 290, the Court should, ex officio, take these grounds into consideration; this would necessitate an oral hearing. Dr. Gürtler's letter contained an exposé of the issues relating to the plea of nullity, as well as to the appeal, and he intended to develop his arguments further at the hearing requested by him.   On ... 1961, the Attorney-General's Office, after examining the legal position, sent the file to the Supreme Court with its "Croquis", in which it stated its opinion, given as though in open court, that the accused's plea of nullity should be rejected; it also pointed out that there was an obvious ground for annulment of the conviction which had not been invoked by the defence or mentioned by the Judge-Rapporteur. This was that the trial Court had imposed a fine of 1,000,000 Schillings, although, under the provisions of the Tax Code which should have been applied, the maximum fine applicable was 600,000 Schillings. It also stated that grounds for annulment under 281, sub-paragraphs 10 and 11, of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been mentioned, which, under paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must automatically be applied in the accused's favour.   The Attorney-General, having regard no doubt to his duty under paragraph 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, examined Dr. Gürtler's application of ... 1961 and sent the Supreme Court a letter with a copy of the application, stating that he saw no reason to intervene. Insofar as the petition contained points relevant in law - even though they made no difference to the legal position of the accused - they were taken into account in the parts of the "Croquis" dealing with the "material-judicial" aspects of the case.   In a decision dated ... 1961, the Supreme Court, despite the original application of the Judge-Rapporteur for a day to be fixed for a public hearing (agreed to by the Attorney-General's Office) and without further consultation of the Attorney-General's Office, rejected the plea of nullity as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was taken in the absence of the Attorney-General and of the accused and his counsel. The Court announced at the same time that a separate order would be made fixing a day for a public hearing since it was apparent that the law had been wrongly applied to the prejudice of the accused, and proceedings should therefore go forward as though the plea of nullity had been based on paragraph 281, sub-paragraphs 10 and 11, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On ... 1961, this hearing was fixed for ... 1961 and counsel for the defence was so informed in a writ dated ... 1961.   The record of the public hearing of ... 1961 shows that counsel for the defence gave his views on the case and made submissions similar to those in his written statement to the Attorney-General's Office. The representative of the Attorney-General's Office took up a position on the lines of that set out in the "Croquis".   The oral decision of ... 1961, ordering the adjournment, was based on a written draft which shows that counsel for the defence took the opportunity to submit legal considerations not contained in his petition to the Attorney-General's Office. The decision therefore had to be deferred sine die to allow a thorough examination of the defence's submissions. After a further session on ... 1961, the Supreme Court delivered the following judgment on ... 1961 at a public hearing:   "The decision of the Regional Court of B. of ... 1961 by ..., which otherwise remains unchanged, is, on the contrary, to be set aside in accordance with Article 290, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as it concerns the legal qualification of the acts which have been attributed to the accused, X., in the conviction and which are mentioned in the beginning of the decision under paragraphs 1) and 2) and accordingly also, insofar as concerns the pronouncement of the sentence;   it is in accordance with Article 288, paragraph 2, rev. 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by a partial amendment of the decision, to be decided as follows:   The offenses of which the accused, X., was found guilty by the Regional Criminal Court of B. in its judgment of ... 1961, and described in detail in paragraphs 1) and 2) thereof, constitute tax evasion (Steuerhehlerei) within the meaning of paragraph 403, sub-paragraphs 1 and 3, and paragraph 401 b, sub-paragraph 1, of the Tax Code, to one year's imprisonment and to a fine of 500,000 Schillings (as against 1,000,000 Schillings in the original sentence) or to six weeks imprisonment in default of payment (as against three months imprisonment in the original sentence) and, further, under paragraph 401, sub-paragraph 2, of the Tax Code, to make restitution amounting to 3,518,600 Schillings for those goods which cannot be recovered, or to six months imprisonment in the original sentence) and, under paragraph 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and of execution."   In the decision on his appeal, the accused was referred to the decision on his plea of nullity.   The allegations made by the Applicant   The Applicant alleges violations of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) (b) and (c).   The submissions of the Parties   Whereas the submissions made by the Applicant's counsel, Dr. Gürtler, may be summarised as follows:   Before the hearing by the Supreme Court of the plea of nullity, the Attorney-General submitted to the Court a so-called "Croquis".   The croquis is, as explained in a decision of the Supreme Court of 6th March 1957, "an expression not recognised by law and only used to express that it is a tentative draft of an opinion for the hearing". Dr. Gürtler has traced the development of the relevant provisions as follows:   Under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure of 23rd May 1873, it is laid down as a principle that the proceedings on a plea of nullity lodged by the accused shall be held before the Supreme Court in public on the day fixed. At this hearing "a member of the Supreme Court appointed Rapporteur by the President of that Court shall give an account of the past history of the proceedings" (Article 287 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (Strafprozeßordnung) and state the grounds for nullity put forward by the complainant together with the contentious points arising from there, but without expressing an opinion on the decision taken by the lower court. Article 287 (3) further provides as follows:   "The complainant shall then be called upon to outline the grounds for the plea and his opponent asked to make a counter-statement. In allcases the accused or is counsel shall have the right to make the closing statement."   The scope of this basic regulation was restricted by the Criminal Amendment Act of 31st December 1877. The provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of this Act lay down the following procedure:   "Article 3   (1) The Supreme Court shall deliberate on a plea of nullity submitted to it in accordance with Article 285 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure at a session in camera, after hearing the Attorney-General or the Rapporteur selected by the President of the Supreme Court from among the members of that Court proposes one of the decisions referred to in Articles 4, 5 or 6.   (2) In all other circumstances a public court sitting to deal with the case shall be ordered in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 286 of the Code without any decision to this effect being required on the part of the Supreme Court.   Article 4   (1) At the deliberation in camera, the plea of nullity may be dismissed de plano:   1. Where it should already have been dismissed by the Court of first instance according to Article 1 of this Act, or where the ground for nullity invoked has already been disposed of by a decision of the Supreme Court on that case;   2. Where the plea of nullity is based on the nullity grounds set out in Article 281, (1 to 8), or in Article 345, (1 to 4), of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court unanimously considers that it should be rejected without further deliberation as being manifestly ill-founded;   (2) The above-mentioned decision can be taken at a deliberation in camera even if, owing to other grounds for nullity or because the Supreme Court wishes to reserve for itself the exercise of the powers granted it under paragraph (1) of Article 290 of the Code, a public court sitting should be called to deal with the case."   The provisions of the Amendment Act have only been incorporated in the Code of Criminal procedure in the last few years. This was done in the "Code of Criminal Procedure 1960" which was promulgated by virtue of Article 1 of the Promulgating Law (Official Gazette [BGB1] No. 114/47), and published in the official announcement by the Federal Government on 20th April 1960 (BGB1. No. 98/47). Article 3 of the old Act new appears as Article 265 c, and the old Article 4 as Article 265 d of the present Code of Criminal Procedure.   As the nullity plea of the accused was based on purely formal grounds, it could, under Austrian municipal law, be dismissed de plano at a session in camera if, in accordance with Article 4 (1) sub-paragraph 2, of the Criminal Amendment Act, the Supreme Court unanimously considered that it should be "rejected without further deliberation as being manifestly ill-founded". It is possible and permissible for such a deliberation in camera to be ordered, however, only so long as the conditions of Article 3 (1) of the Amendment Act are fulfilled. Even if the Rapporteur of the Supreme Court requests a decision according to paragraph 4, proceedings in camera may be ordered if, and only if, the Attorney-General has first been heard for that purpose (i.e. after he has been heard);   thus the Attorney-General must also have an opportunity to say whether, in his opinion, the nullity plea "should be rejected without further deliberation as being 'manifestly ill-founded'". Should any one of the conditions in Article 3, paragraph 1 not be fulfilled, a public hearing must be held.   It is perfectly clear from the origin, meaning and purpose of the clause, as well as from the wording of the Act, that the provision governing those cases, in which immediate dismissal of a nullity plea at a session in camera is permissible, is a wholly exceptional application and must be very strictly interpreted. Article 3 (2) of the Criminal Amendment Act orders that "in all other circumstances", that is to say without exception, unless the conditions of Article 3 (1) of the Amendment Act of 1877 are fulfilled, "a public session shall be ordered."   Dr. Gürtler describes the procedure usually followed in the following terms:   "The proceedings on a plea of nullity lodged by the accused are so regulated that the plea of nullity is lodged in the court of first instance, namely, in the case at hand, the Regional Court of B. The Court then presents a report on the plea of nullity to the representative of the Public Prosecution who is attached to the Regional Court and has the right to prepare counter-statements to this plea of nullity. After presenting these counter-statements, or after the appointed period has run out, the files are presented by the Regional Court to the Supreme Court sitting as the court of second instance. Up to this step, the right of treatment on equal footing is protected; a counter-statement presented by the office of the Public Prosecution on a legal instrument is an item of the court file and is subject to examination by counsel for the defence. This uniform and just treatment is protected by law for the accused, if and as long as it comes to a public hearing on the plea of nullity in which, according to the clear wording of the law, counsel for the defence and the Attorney-General are treated equally and both for the first time - and only in the trial - have the possibility to speak. In this trial, however, a facility sneaked in not provided for by law, against which the Austrian Bar Association has been fighting for many years, namely, this "Croquis" of the office of the Attorney-General.   In this "Croquis", the Attorney-General summarises the points of view which he intends to present in court on the day of trial. This croquis has developed, however, in practice, to be a regular draft of the decision. Indeed, according to custom, the croquis was taken over verbatim into the body of the decision, whereby it is impossible for the defence to ascertain if and in what measure this applied in the present case. Such croquis are prepared in the same manner and with the same effect by the office of the Attorney-General in such cases in which there is no trial at all, and in which the plea of nullity of the defence is rejected."   Dr. Gürtler also refers to the following statement made by Dr. Liebscher and quoted by Dr. Gürtler during the oral hearing before the Sub-Commission in the four Austrian cases:   "In the sessions in camera, on the other hand, the position of the accused is considerably more unfavourable, because only the written pleadings are before the Court;   the accused himself, or his representative, is not heard.   Therefore it will accord far better with logic, as well as with equity, to give counsel for the defence a sight of those written opinions of the Attorney-General which are prepared for the session in camera".   At those proceedings, Dr. Gürtler himself added:   "At a session in camera, the Attorney-General alone receives a hearing, in a way for which the law makes no provision. These are back-stage mysteries of criminal procedure which the defence only discovers by chance and cannot check because scrutiny of the records is unwarrantably refused. And yet, it is at sessions in camera that the interests of the defence and the accused are particularly at stake.   In all pleas of nullity decided in camera, the Attorney-General, it transpires, is heard by the Supreme Court as follows:   Either he is handed the case-file and prepares a "Croquis" which is in reality a draft decision and is accepted in many cases as the judgment, as was shown and expressly admitted on the occasion of Barristers' Day, or the Judge-Rapporteur of the Supreme Court prepares a draft decision - and sends it to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General either agrees or disagrees with it. In neither case is the defence informed. What he does, and what happens then, cannot be checked: it remains secret. But he does get the draft decision."   Dr. Gürtler adds that the Attorney-General is bound by directives from the Minister of Justice. In this respect he submits that contacts between independent judges and administration officials made before the taking of a court decision, "open a source of danger for the independence of adjudication. This is especially so when such contact is beyond any possibility of control by the defence."   He refers to decision No. 434/58 (Yearbook, Volume 2, page 354) in which the Commission held:   "The rights to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, appear to contemplate that everyone who is a party to civil proceedings shall have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the Court under conditions which do not place him under a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent."   And adds that this principle must apply to criminal proceedings with the same force.   Dr. Gürtler then deals with the facts of the present case:   He submits that, on ... 1961, the Attorney-General received from the Supreme Court the case-file on the basis of which he prepared a written opinion, "the Croquis", which he submitted to the Court on ... 1961 and which, either in extenso or in an amended form, constituted the decision adopted by the Court in a closed session and in the absence of the defence.   He points out that the croquis was supplied only on the assumption and condition that an oral hearing would be held to deal with the plea of nullity lodged by the accused on the grounds invoked under paragraph 4 and, if appropriate, also under paragraph 5 of Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The croquis was not produced at the hearing and was not made available to the defence for the submission of a reply or objection as no public hearing was ever held. The croquis which was produced in connection with the plea of nullity of the accused (Article 281, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure) has, moreover, not yet been seen by the defence.   As Applicant's counsel explained at the Austrian Barristers'Conference, 1958, in connection with the problem of the "Attorney-General's Croquis", the Attorney-General hopes to influence the decision of the Supreme Court, to which not the slightest objection is raised, as the plea of nullity of the defence serves the same purpose. The difference lies only in the fact that the Attorney-General's Office is informed of what is contained in the written plea of nullity of the defence. The prosecution's answer to this in the croquis becomes known to the defendant either too late or not at all. It is too late if the croquis is produced only at the oral hearing. The defendant is then at a distinct disadvantage because the hearing is prepared on the basis of the croquis by the Rapporteur and the President of the Court; the defence is not informed at all if, as in the present case, no oral hearing is held and the plea of nullity is rejected at a session in camera.   He submits that the Attorney-General also prepared a "croquis" on the questions dealt with at the oral hearing in ... 1961.   After receiving the summons to the hearing fixed for ... 1961, together with the notice of the dismissal of the accused's plea of nullity at a non-public sitting, counsel for the defence would have had a suitable opportunity of acquainting himself with the "croquis". The Supreme Court still refuses today to allow any inspection of the "croquis". The Attorney-General agreed, however, to allow counsel for the defence to inspect that part of the "croquis" which dealt with the material grounds of nullity (Article 281, paragraphs 9 - 11, of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In accordance with that practice, the Attorney-General, following a conversation with counsel for the defence at which the latter requested authorization to inspect the "croquis", was empowered to grant such authorization with the proviso that it would not apply to that part of the "croquis" which related to the formal grounds of nullity. As, however, the "croquis" formed a whole, it was not possible to divide it up for purposes of inspection, and the Attorney-General therefore ordered that an official copy be made of the part of the "croquis" declared available for inspection and that this copy be communicated to counsel for the defence.   When summoned to the oral hearing on ... 1961, Dr. Gürtler was only informed that the Court "intended to discuss judicial considerations within the framework of Article 290". Had it not been for his possession of the copy of the "croquis", he would not have known the nature of these considerations.   He states, however, that the copy of the "croquis" which was made available to him was "incomplete, and decisive statements were lacking".   Applicant's counsel further points out that the very fact that the "croquis" is headed by a 'B', shows that it cannot have been complete, since the 'B' must necessarily have been preceded by an 'A'.   He adds that, in the course of a conversation with Dr. T, General Counsel and representative of the Attorney-General's Office during the deliberation on the judgment, the latter drew his attention to the amnesty clause concerning USA, unobtrusively embodied in the first State Treaty Implementation Act, and also read out to him the following passage of the "croquis" concerning the material-legal grounds for nullity under Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:   "For the sake of completeness, it must also be pointed out that the requirements of Article 24, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Law of 25th July 1956 (Bundesgesetzblatt No. 165/56) are not fulfilled."   Counsel for the defence immediately drew Dr. T's attention to the fact that, in the official copy of the "croquis" supplied to him, this sentence was missing and the issue had not been raised during the oral hearing. He stated that it was necessary for him to have an opportunity to speak on this point before the Supreme Court. The representative of the Attorney-General's Office not only agreed to this suggestion, but personally submitted to the Supreme Court a joint request for the reopening on this grounds of the proceedings which had already been closed. The Supreme Court granted this request. It was obvious that a hurried submission in reply, without adequate preparation and simply on the basis of a private and incidental conversation, did not make for a proper defence.   Dr. Gürtler further points out that, in its motives, the text of the final decision (pages 3 to 8) corresponds word for word with the copy of the "croquis" (pages 8 to 14) which he received on ... 1961. He adds that there is a strong presumption that the remainder of the decision is likewise a verbatim reproduction of that part of the "croquis" which remained concealed from him.   Whereas the submissions made by the Respondent Government may be summarised as follows:   It is submitted that the Application was manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) of the Convention. The "croquis" does not constitute a violation of Article 6, and the question of "equality of arms" did not arise.   On behalf of the Respondent Government, reference is first made to the general practice regarding the "croquis" system.   The Government admits that, if the Attorney-General's Office agrees with the Judge-Rapporteur that the case should be heard publicly, it sends him back the file with its "croquis". In this way, it informs the Rapporteur, who has in effect requested its opinion on the appeal by sending the file and plea of nullity, what line its representative proposes to take at the hearing. The Attorney-General's Office does not thereby become a party, but simply gives a legal opinion which is not binding and thus does not commit the Supreme Court in any way. This is clear from the introductory formula of the "croquis": "... The Attorney-General's Office considers that, after the oral proceedings, ...". It cannot be argued that the disclosure in a public hearing of the "croquis", which has previously been kept secret, has a surprise effect which prejudices the accused and his defence. It should not be overlooked that the matter at issue, namely the proceedings in the trial Court,are known to the accused (and his counsel) at first hand and not merely from the judgment and record of the trial, on which alone the Attorney-General has to rely. Therefore no surprise effect is to be expected from a submission referring to such material, especially since the Attorney-General's Office is precluded from producing new facts and evidence in nullity proceedings before the Supreme Court. The same applies to explanations of the legal position which are equally accessible to professionalcounsel, in the light of legislation, judicial practice, jurisprudence and literature, as to the Attorney-General or his representative.   Hence, no infringement of the right of "equality of arms", or indeed any encroachment on the rights of the defence, can be deduced from the fact that the contents of the "croquis" are first made known to the defence in open court.   In respect of the present Application, the Government submits as follows:   At no stage of the proceedings in question did the Attorney-General's Office express the view that the Applicant's plea of nullity should be rejected in camera.   On the contrary, it agreed with the member of the Supreme Court designated as Rapporteur that the appeal of the accused should be heard in public session. The Attorney-General's Office did not learn that the plea of nullity had been rejected at a closed session until it received a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in ... 1961. The Attorney-General was not present at that closed session and the "hearing" to which he was entitled by law had consisted simply of his opinion of supporting the Judge-Rapporteur's request for a public hearing. It's comments on the grounds for nullity mentioned in paragraph 281, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, were intended simply as an opinion on the plea of nullity for use in public session. They were thus of no avail and hence there is no question of any infringement of the principle of "equality of arms".   The Supreme Court is fully entitled, irrespective of the opinion of the Attorney-General's Office on the question of whether the case should be heard in open court or in camera, to reject in camera a plea of nullity based solely on Article 281, Numbers 1 - 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it is of the unanimous opinion thatthe plea can, without need for further deliberation, be rejected as manifestly ill-founded (Article 285 d, paragraph (1), Number 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).   This was, indeed, the situation in this case;   the statutory right of the Attorney-General to be consulted before such a step was taken (Article 285 c, paragraph (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure) was respected in that, when returning the file, he expressed the opinion, which was not, however, binding on the Supreme Court, that the plea of nullity should be heard in public.   Dr. Gürtler's assertion that he first heard in a conversation during an adjournment of the Supreme Court proceedings of the existence of the Federal Act of 25th July 1956, BGBI. Nr. 165/56, which had been in force since 31st July 1956 and which he hoped (wrongly as it happened) would favour his case, is open to doubt. It is certainly incorrect for him to suggest that the Attorney-General's Office, in knowledge of this law and of its application, had made in the "croquis" observations on the case which had been concealed from him. In any event, the Attorney-General is not under any obligation to lead defence counsel by the hand and a failure to do so does not infringe the principle of equality of arms.   It is, moreover, to be observed that, once the Applicant's plea of nullity had been disposed of in camera, the proceedings on this plea were at an end. The subsequent steps taken to fix a day for a public hearing constituted an official intervention by the Attorney-General's Office and the Supreme Court, and were solely in the interests of the accused.   This intervention was based on paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the Supreme Court must indeed confine itself to the grounds for annulment expressly invoked or clearly implied by the applicant. If, however, the Supreme Court is convinced by any plea of nullity which has been lodged that the criminal law has been wrongly applied to the prejudice of the accused (paragraph 281, sub-paragraph 1, points 9 - 11, of the Code of Criminal Procedure), it is nevertheless bound to proceed ex officio as though such ground of nullity had been invoked.   In other words, the Supreme Court is obliged by law to give weight in favour of the accused to any "material-judicial" defects in a judgment which the defence has failed to invoke. The Attorney-General's Office is equally bound to do so, as can be seen both from the general stipulation of paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and from paragraph 33, which provides that the Attorney-General, even when considering judgments by criminal courts that already have force by law, may enter a plea of nullity to ensure that justice is done.   Thus paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure actually means that the Attorney-General's Office and the Supreme Court are empowered and obliged to go beyond the literal defence of the accused and to help him to obtain his rights (favour defensionis).   In the present case, the Attorney-General's Office not only supported the application of the Judge-Rapporteur for steps to be taken under paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also drew attention in its "croquis" to a further ground of nullity operating in favour of the accused. This had not been raised either by the Rapporteur or by the former or present counsel for the defence.   In the procedure which has thus been instituted under paragraph 290, sub-paragraph 1, the Attorney-General's Office and the Supreme Court have virtually acted in defence of the accused by correcting the omissions of the legal representative whom he himself had appointed.   This has led to a considerable improvement in his position compared with the position in which he found himself under the originaljudgment: he has been spared deportation, while his fine has been reduced by half a million Schillings and his prison sentence by almost six months.   In conclusion, the Government submits that a convicted person has no grounds to complain of infringement of the principle of "equality of arms" where he has been given the opportunity under the law of his own country to appeal from the judgment of the Court of first instance. The object of such appeal is, of course, to improve his position by the reduction or quashing of his sentence. At the same time he knows that his position cannot as a result of the appeal be made worse.   This is so in the case in question. The Public Prosecutor had refrained from taking any legal steps and had made no counter-statement to the accused's plea of nullity. As a result, whatever the Supreme Court might have decided, the accused could not have found himself in a worse position than that resulting from the original proceedings.   As to the question, whether or not the copy of the "croquis" received by Dr. Gürtler was incomplete, the Government submits that Part 'A' of the "croquis", as prepared by the Attorney-General's Office for the Court, contained an opinion on the accused's plea of nullity (which plea was based only on Article 281, Numbers 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Part 'B' contained a statement of the extent to which the judgment of the Court of first instance contained mistakes of law. These mistakes had not been pleaded, but the Attorney-General's Office was in duty bound to point them out in the interest of the accused at the public hearing. But since the plea of nullity was rejected by the Supreme Court in camera, Part 'A' of the "croquis" had become obsolete and there was no reason to provide Dr. Gürtler with a copy.   THE LAW   Whereas the Commission has considered various elements of the system of the so-called "croquis" as practised at the time of the proceedings in question;   Whereas, in particular, the Commission has first noted that this system was not provided for by law but was an administrative practice which had been followed over a period of years; further, that the primary object of the "croquis" was apparently to prepare the case for submission by the Attorney-General's Office to the Supreme Court in open session;   that, nevertheless, the fact that a copy of the "croquis" was sent to the Court before the opening of the session resulted in the Court being aware of the Attorney-General's case before it was made known to the appellant;   that, indeed, it was possible that the full contents of the "croquis" might never be made known to the appellant;   Whereas, on the other hand, the Attorney-General's Office submitted his case at a hearing at which the appellant was represented and thus had the possibility to submit arguments in reply;   Whereas, the Commission, after appreciating these various aspects of the "croquis" system, is of the opinion that the system, as then practised, might have given rise to an abuse resulting in a prejudice to the principle of equality of arms and generally to the fair hearing of an appellant's case;   that consequently the system was on the whole undesirable;   Whereas the Commission has now been informed that, since, the period of the proceedings in question, the "croquis" system has been modified to the extent that the whole "croquis" is made available to an appellant before the opening of the proceedings at which it is to be used;   Whereas, although the Commission considers that the "croquis" system was in general undesirable, the question before it is whether the application of the system to the present Applicant in the proceedings before the Supreme Court amounted to a violation of the Convention and, in particular, of the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6) in regard to the guarantee to an accused person of the right of a fair hearing in the proceedings against him;   Whereas the question whether the trial conforms to the standard laid down by paragraph (1) of Article 6 (Art. 6-1) must be decided on the basis ofa consideration of the trial as a whole, and not necessarily on the basis of an isolated consideration of one particular aspect of the trial or one particular incident (The "Nielsen" Case, Document A 67.185, page 80).   Whereas it is not denied in the present case that the Attorney-General submitted a "croquis" to the Supreme Court before the Court began its consideration of the case against the Applicant; whereas the question arises whether or not this particular aspect of the trial caused prejudice to the Applicant's defence, and if so, to such an extent as to deprive him of a fair hearing in a general evaluation of the case;   Whereas, therefore, the various stages of the proceedings must be looked at as a whole in arriving at such evaluation;   Whereas it is true that the "croquis" was sent to the Supreme Court before the non-public session on ... 1961 at which the Applicant's plea of nullity was rejected; whereas, however, at the subsequent public hearing of the plea of nullity filed ex officio by the Attorney-General's Office, the Attorney-General himself invoked legal provisions which had not been invoked by the Applicant in his own plea of nullity and which were wholly in the Applicant's favour; whereas the parts of the "croquis" relating to these provisions were made available to the Applicant's lawyer before the opening of the proceedings;   Whereas it must also be taken into account that the final outcome of these proceedings was beneficial to the Applicant in that his sentence of deportation was set aside, the fine imposed upon him was very considerably reduced and his sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine were reduced from ten months to six months and from three months to six weeks respectively;   Whereas the intervention by the Attorney-General in the present case was to the benefit of the Applicant; whereas the use of the "croquis" which was the basis of that intervention is not on the whole to be considered as having prejudiced his right to a fair trial and thereby violating the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6) in that respect;   Whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   Now therefore the Commission declares this application INADMISSIBLE.