CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 1987

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12100/86                       by J.G.                       against Austria             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 17 May 1985 by J.G. against Austria and registered on 4 April 1986 under file N° 12100/86;           Having regard to:   -        the Rapporteur's request to the respondent Government of         23 May 1986 for information under Rule 40 para. 2 (a)         of the Rules of Procedure;   -        the information provided by the respondent Government on         17 June 1986 and the reply submitted thereto by the         applicant on 9 July 1986;   -        the first report of December 1986 provided for in Rule 40 of         the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -        the Commission's decision of 2 March 1987 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government and         invite them to submit written observations on the         admissibility and merits of the application;   -        the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         27 July 1987 and the reply submitted thereto by the applicant         on 31 August 1987;   -        the second Report of November 1986 provided for in Rule 40         of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1934, is an employee resident in Salzburg.           On 6 May 1977 the applicant was reported by the R.Z.K., an agricultural bank, to the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) as having participated, under the influence of a lawyer, Dr.   Me, in fraudulent borrowing from a number of banks in order to finance various firms.   On 16 May 1977 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office instructed the Upper Austrian Regional Police Headquarters (Landesgendarmeriekommando) to investigate.     I.             On 31 May 1977 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office applied to the investigating judge (Untersuchungsrichter) at the Wels District Court (Kreisgericht) for preliminary court inquiries (gerichtliche Vorerhebungen) in respect of Dr.   Me, the applicant and various other persons, on suspicion of fraud according to S. 146 et seq. of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch).   The Public Prosectutor's Office thereby requested, inter alia, the inspection of the applicant's accounts and business papers in various banks and credit institutions.           On 1 June 1977 the investigating judge decided to order the inspection of altogether 17 bank accounts relating to Dr.   Me and the applicant as well as to companies with whom these persons had had connection.   The case-file was returned to the Public Prosecutor's Office on 3 June 1977.           On 30 August 1977 the applicant's lawyer, Dr.   S, submitted his power of attorney and also requested permission to consult the case-file.           The investigating judge decided to inspect altogether 18 further bank accounts in Vienna, Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg, Styria and Tyrol on 23 and 28 September 1977 and on 5, 18 and 19 October 1977.           On 13 December 1977 the applicant was given an opportunity to make a statement before the Salzburg Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion), but he declined to do so.           On 28 December 1977 the investigating judge instructed the Economic Police (Wirtschaftspolizei) of the Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) to make inquiries.           On 13 January 1978 the Public Prosecutor's Office applied to the investigating judge, inter alia, that the applicant, Dr.   Me and a number of other persons who were suspected of fraud should be heard by the Upper Austrian Police Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion). Furthermore, an order was requested to search and seize certain minutes of executive meetings of a bank concerning bank transactions with Dr.   Me and the applicant.   A search warrant was requested in respect of a house in which it was suspected that goods of a bankrupt electrical trading company, N, had been stored away.   Finally, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the appointment of an expert to examine whether Dr.   Me, the applicant and other persons had committed bankruptcy offences, in particular fraudulent or negligent insolvency (Krida), according to S. 156 et seq. of the Criminal Code.           On 23 January 1978 the investigating judge issued a search and seizure warrant in respect of the N company.   He also ordered the inspection of four further bank accounts.           The expert, Dr.Ma, was nominated on 26 January 1978.   On the same day the investigating judge also ordered the preparation of an individual file which was transmitted to the expert on 30 January 1978.           Upon the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office of 2 February 1978 the investigating judge ordered that the accounts of nine companies in Upper Austria and Salzburg be seized, including the Ha and He companies.   The Public Prosecutor's Office gave as explanation for the request that the suspected persons had as company partners had business contacts with the companies and that it was necessary to clarify the suspicion of fraud existing in respect of these persons.           Dr.   Ma submitted his expert opinion, which comprised 113 pages, on 30 March 1978.           On 11 April 1978 the investigating judge ordered the inspection of two further bank accounts.   He also isued a search and seizure warrant in respect of a company in Vienna.   On the same day the applicant refused to make a statement before the Vienna General Directorate for Public Security of the Federal Ministry for the Interior (Generaldirektion für öffentliche Sicherheit des Bundesministeriums für Inneres).   However, on 26 April 1978, the applicant submitted a written statement concerning the allegation of negligent insolvency.           The Vienna Economic Police and the Upper Austrian Police Directorate submitted extensive reports on the inquiries made to the investigating judge at the Krems District Court on 22 May 1978.           According to a file note of the Public Prosecutor's Office of 16 June 1978, a certain Mr.   F, the manager of the "E-Shop" which had rented rooms in the He company, attempted to put aside certain goods of the "E-Shop" in view of unfulfilled contracts with the He company, of which Dr.   Me was the director.   Mr.   F suspected that Dr.   Me had illegally put aside impounded goods (Pfandware) to Mr.   F's detriment.           Upon a report of Mr.   F, the investigating judge was requested on 19 June 1978 to hear him as witness and to undertake preliminary inquiries against Dr.   Me who was suspeced of having impeded execution contrary to S. 162 of the Criminal Code.   The judge was also requested to hear other witnesses and to procure and inspect files.   On 20 June 1978 the goods of the "E-Shop" were apparently impounded (verwahrt) and later stored in a room in the Hotel L.           On 22 June 1978 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested the investigating judge to seize the goods of the He company as well as the accounts of the latter and of the "E-Shop".   On the same day the applicant was heard by the Salzburg Regional Court (Landes- gericht).   Dr.   Me was apparently heard by the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office on 26 June 1978.           On 4 July 1978 the fashion house M was searched and accounts and goods seized insofar as they related to the He company and the "E-Shop".           On 20 July 1978 the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the seizure of goods in the Hotel P which apparently belonged to the company N since it was suspected that these goods would be put aside. On 2 August 1978 the investigating judge was requested to order further inquiries inter alia in respect of financial transactions of a certain Mrs.   Me.           On 3 August 1978 Dr.B was appointed expert.   His opinion was submitted on 18 September 1978.           On 14 May 1979, upon statements made by a financial agent, the investigating judge was requested to order a search of Dr.   Me's office, since Dr.   Me was urgently suspected of having embezzled client monies and to seize accounting documents.   This request was executed on 7 June 1979.           On 22 May 1979 the applicant asked for permission to consult the case-file.   On 2 and 16 July 1979 he filed complaints concerning a decision which fixed the fees for the first expert, Dr.   Ma. Thereupon, the case-file was transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) from which it returned on 30 July 1979.           In a letter of nine pages of 11 April 1980 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office sent to the investigating judge the bill of indictment against Dr.   Me containing charges of embezzlement, negligent insolvency and giving false testimony.   The Office also requested the institution of preliminary inquiries against the applicant and Dr.   Me in respect of aggravated fraud, embezzlement and negligent insolvency.   Further requests concerned the separation of the proceedings against Dr.   Me, the preparation of a supplementary expert opinion and the hearing of further witnesses.           On 24 June 1980 the bill of indictment was forwarded to Dr.   Me who, on 10 July 1980, filed an objection against it.   On 2 September 1980 the case-file was transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal from which it returned on 26 September 1980.   Meanwhile, on 26 August 1980, the investigating judge instructed the first expert, Dr.   Ma, to prepare a supplementary opinion.           A decision of the investigating judge of 4 November 1980 concerned the inclusion, or procurement, of certain files, and the exclusion, or surrender (Abtretung), of other files.   On 31 December 1980 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested the further exclusion of certain files and the incorporation of other proceedings.           On 11 and 12 May 1981 various witnesses were heard by the investigating judge.           After the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) at the Wels District Court had again instructed, on 14 May 1981, the expert Dr.   Ma to prepare a supplementary expert opinion, the latter was submitted on 1 July 1981.           On 6 July 1981 the Review Chamber apparently decided to sever certain proceedings from the preliminary inquiries instituted against the applicant.   On 31 July 1981 the case-file was transmitted to the investigating judge.           On 2 March 1982 Dr.   Me was convicted by the Wels District Court of embezzlement, fraudulent insolvency and giving false testimony, and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.   The judgment became final on 10 March 1983.   II.             On 4 May 1982, the investigating judge at the Wels District Court decided to institute preliminary investigations against the applicant.           Between 3 and 20 August 1982 the investigating judge heard 33 witnesses, partly locally in Salzburg.   On 9 and 19 August and on 23 September 1982 the applicant was heard.           On 27 October 1982 the Vienna Economic Police submitted extensive reports to the investigating judge.           On 10 June 1983 the General Directorate for Public Security also submitted extensive reports to the investigating judge.           On 1 July 1983 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office requested that the applicant should be questioned in detail and that a further expert opinion should be prepared by an expert accountant.           On 23 March 1984 Mr.   D and Dr.   H were appointed experts and the file was transmitted to them.           On 23 April 1985 the applicant was again questioned by the investigating judge.           On 17 May 1985 the applicant introduced his present application with the Commission.           Dr.   H's expert opinion, comprising 98 pages, was submitted, after repeated reminders, to the investigating judge on 14 June 1985.           On 9 July 1985, the investigating judge decided to sever proceedings concerning four other persons.   In this context the case-file apparently had to be transmitted to the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office.   On 3 January 1986 Mr.   D submitted his expert opinion, comprising 73 pages, to the investigating judge.     III.             By bill of indictment of 19 March 1986 the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant in his capacity as executive employee with having negligently caused his insolvency and the insolvency of the WET Company, formerly the N Company.   The applicant was additionally charged, partly as an accessory, with having fraudulently induced the G. credit cooperative to grant loans resulting in an overall loss of 1,097,811,14 AS.   Finally, he was charged with intentionally misrepresenting the financial position of the WET Company in balance sheets and company reports.   At the same time the Public Prosecutor's Office apparently also requested the discontinuation of proceedings concerning certain offences in respect of which the inquiries had brought about insufficient results.   The bill of indictment also brought charges against Dr.   Me and two other persons.           On 5 June 1986 the bill of indictment of 19 March 1986 was received by the investigating judge at the Wels District Court, and on 14 July 1986 by the applicant.           Meanwhile, on 9 July 1986, the applicant applied for pardon and the termination (Niederschlagung) of the criminal proceedings pending against him.           On 27 August 1986 a request was filed, apparently by the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office, for severance and transfer of the proceedings relating to a further accused H.   The applicant commented on this request on 8 September 1986.           On 1 October 1986 the case-file was transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal in view of a complaint by Dr.   Me concerning fees.   The case-file was returned on 12 October 1986.           The case-file was then forwarded on 14 November 1986 to the Federal Ministry of Justice.   On 25 November 1986 the Federal Minister of Justice filed a statement to the President of Austria in which he proposed the termination of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant.   The file was then transmitted to the Chancellery of the   President of Austria from which it returned on 11 June 1987.   On 16 June 1987 a statement was issued that the President of Austria saw no grounds to accept the proposal of mercy and to terminate the proceedings.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him which allegedly he is in no position to influence.   He submits that, while he was involved under the influence of Dr.Me in fraudulently obtaining credits from various banks, he was a victim rather than an accessory.   The case was very complex and the investigating judge overburdened.           He submits that in this context a bank filed a bankruptcy petition against him and that, at a date not specified, the Chamber of Economic Consultants therefore withdrew his licence to practise as an economic and tax counsel.   He alleges that he has suffered damage to his health as well as financial damage on account of this undue length of the criminal proceedings and that he will again be able to practise as a tax consultant once the proceedings have been concluded.       PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 17 May 1985 and registered on 4 April 1986.           On 23 May 1986 the Secretary to the Commission, upon instruction by the Rapporteur pursuant to Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, requested the respondent Government to submit further information on the application.           The information was submitted by the Government on 17 June 1986. The applicant's comments in reply are dated 9 July 1987.           On 2 March 1987 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit observations on its admissibility and merits, in respect of the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 concerning the length of the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.           The respondent Government's observations were submitted on 27 July 1987 and the reply thereto by the applicant on 31 August 1987.       SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.     The respondent Government&-   I.       The facts           The Government's submissions as to the facts have been included in THE FACTS above.     II.      Requirements under Article 26 of the Convention           The Government raise no objections in respect of the requirements under Article 26 of the Convention.   III.     Admissibility and merits of the application   1.       As regards the beginning of the relevant period the Government submit that "the determination of a criminal charge" against the applicant within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention commenced on 31 May 1977, i.e. when the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office applied to the investigating judge at the Wels District Court for preliminary court inquiries, requesting in particular that the applicant's accounts and business papers in various bank institutions be inspected.           The investigating judge ordered the inspection of various bank accounts relating to Dr.Me and the applicant on 1 June 1977.   The applicant was informed of this decision already on 6 June 1977.   He was thereby given notice that he was the subject of inquiries for the purpose of a criminal prosecution on suspicion of having committed criminal offences.   2.       According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention must be assessed in the light of the complexity of the case as well as of the conduct of the applicant and the competent authorities.   3.       Typical of the present criminal case involving economic offences are extensive business and banking aspects requiring clarification by the investigating judge and the Police Directorate. The judge also needed to obtain several opinions from accountancy experts.   Thus, both the scope and the nature of the facts to be judged must be considered as being complex.   An indication therefore can be seen in the fact that the case file at present comprises 14 volumes of 500 pages each.   Even the applicant referred in his application to the Commission of 17 May 1985 to the complexity of the facts.           The economic activities of the companies concerned had to be traced back to 1972 and then investigated.   Given the multitude of facts, the criminal responsibility of the individual suspects had to be accurately determined before a prosecution could be brought. Indeed, where the inquiries brought about insufficient results, the Public Prosecutor's Office gave extensive reasons in its bill of indictment against the applicant for the discontinuation of the proceedings concerned.   To some extent the Court countered one of the procedural complications resulting from the sheer size of the criminal case by creating separate files and severing certain criminal proceedings.   4.       The applicant is not obliged to cooperate actively or provide explanations in criminal proceedings against him.   In the present case, he at first refused to make any statements to the Police Directorate or otherwise cooperate in clarifying the facts.   5.       It is undeniable that the Wels District Court did its best to expedite proceedings.   The Court concentrated first on establishing the criminal responsibility of the principal suspect Dr.   Me.   This manner of proceeding also conformed with the applicant's intentions, who so far has sought to justify himself as having been a victim of Dr.   Me.   The severance of a complex of facts (Faktenkomplex) concerning Dr.Me and the conclusion of these proceedings by a final judgment would therefore also seem appropriate as being in the interest of expediting proceedings.   6.       In cases of economic offences of such magnitude the courts are mostly dependent on the opinion of accountancy experts for an assessment of the facts, in particular in order to establish the date of insolvency.   The action taken by the Wels District Court would thus also appear to have been economical as being in the interest of expediting the proceedings.   It must however be admitted that the court did not supervise the work of the experts very closely. In view of the size of the case-file it did not fix a deadline for the preparation of the expert opinions.           For the final expert opinion the case-file and the voluminous accountancy papers were studied for more than a year by the experts Dr. H and Mr.   D and their colleagues.   It should also be noted that the company accounts which were found were based partly on false valuations (Bewertungen).   As a result, the balance sheets and annual reports of the undertakings had to be redone in order to arrive at a true picture of the financial position of the companies.           Nevertheless, the investigating judge issued several reminders in respect of the final expert opinion.   The appointment of a new expert seemed inappropriate to the judge and could have led to further delays in the proceedings, since the experts had already carried out extensive preparatory work.   IV.      Conclusion           In the Government's view, the unusual length of the criminal proceedings pending to date against the applicant can still be considered as being reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   The Government consider that the Wels District Court conducted this voluminous case involving economic offences without unjustifiably delaying proceedings.           The Government therefore request the Commission to declare the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded or, alter- natively, to conclude that the provisions of the Convention were not violated in the present case.     B.     The applicant&S   I.       The facts           The applicant's submissions as to the facts have been included in THE FACTS above.   The applicant points out that in the first years of the preliminary court inquiries, without any apparent system, 41 bank accounts were inspected, seizures were carried out in ten companies, four experts were appointed etc.   The proceedings against Dr.   Me were severed because they concerned other matters. During the first five years nothing was done in respect of the remaining suspects.   Only on 4 May 1982 was a decision taken to institute preliminary court investigations.   Only in August 1982 was the applicant questioned for the first time by the investigating judge.           After the applicant's request of 9 July 1986 for pardon and the termination of the proceedings, the reply was given one year later, on 16 June 1987.   During this time the proceedings before the Wels District Court were apparently adjourned, possibly also because the authorities failed to have copies made of the file documents forwarded to the Chancellery of the President of Austria.   II.      Admissibility and merits of the application   1.       Starting point of the period to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention is 6 May 1977 when the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office instructed the Upper Austrian Regional Police Headquarters to make investigations.   2.       According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs in criminal proceedings the accused is not obliged to cooperate actively with the authorities.   The applicant did not employ the procedural possibilities available to him with the intention of delaying the proceedings even if this may have been the result.   In the early stages of the inquiries he was not willing to give evidence to the police in so complex a matter, since he had to assume that they lacked the necessary economic expertise.   His complaints of 2 and 16 July 1979 caused no delays, since only part of the case-file had to be transmitted to the Court of Appeal.   In any event, the Government do not state that the applicant delayed the proceedings.   3.       As the submissions under III. will demonstrate, the authorities used uncoordinated measures which resulted in unnecessarily delaying the proceedings.   For instance, the many expert opinions prepared demonstrate that the District Court neglected to define the tasks of the experts properly and to formulate pertinent questions.   It also did not fix a time-limit within which the expert opinions had to be prepared.           Moreover, by linking the criminal proceedings with those brought against Dr.   Me, considerable delays occurred which affected the applicant.   Only four years after the preliminary inquiries commenced were the proceedings against Dr.   Me severed as they related to different facts.   The Court could have realised this earlier.   From mid-1980 to mid-1981 the proceedings exclusively concerned Dr.Me. Thereafter, five further years passed before the bill of indictment was received by the investigating judge on 5 June 1986.   If the file was then sent to the Chancellery of the President of Austria, the Court should have made copies thereof (reference to Eur.   Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27, p. 36 para. 104).   4.       Taken as a whole and objectively, the proceedings pending against the applicant since 1977 have lasted unreasonably long within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   Insofar as the reasons for procedural delays are not evident to the applicant, the Government should provide corresponding clarification.   However, apart from general references to the complexity of the case, the Government state no grounds capable of justifying the procedural delays in question.   III.     In particular the assessment of the authorities' conduct           The applicant points out that the instruction by the Wels Public Prosecutor's Office of 16 May 1977 served no useful purpose, since the matter was too complicated for the Regional Police Headquarters.   An expert should have been called in from the start. The occurrences on 3 June and 30 August 1977 did not contribute to the inquiries, the steps taken on 23 and 28 September, 19 October and 28 December 1977 were isolated and not purposeful.   And as late as nine months after the inquiries commenced was the preparation of an expert opinion requested on 13 January 1978.           The fact that warrants for search and seizure were only issued on 23 January, 2 February and 11 April 1978 suggests irresolution and insufficient thought.   As late as one year after the inquiries commenced, on 19 June 1978, was the main suspect Dr.   Me heard for the first time.   It is unclear what purpose the measures of 4 and 20 July and 2 August 1978 served.   It is not evident why on 3 August 1978 another expert was appointed.   The request for a seizure on 14 May 1979 occurred two years after the inquiries commenced.           Various steps between 24 June and 26 September 1980, including the appointment of an expert, concerned Dr.Me rather than the applicant.   It is not clear if the witnesses heard on 11 and 12 May 1981 could not have been heard long before.   At the latest on 27 October 1982 the indictment should have been decided.   It is unclear why on 1 July 1983 the preparation of a further expert opinion was requested.   Between 9 July 1985 and 3 January 1986, and again beween 14 July 1986 and 16 June 1987, no investigations occurred.   IV.      Conclusion           The applicant points out that he has been waiting for over ten years for the proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.   As a result he is suffering from a heart condition and from diabetes which is threatening his eye sight.   The proceedings have caused his personal and financial ruin.   He requests the Commission to declare his application admissible.     THE LAW           The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in 1977 which allegedly he has been in no position to influence.   He submits that the case was complex and the investigating judge overburdened.   Throughout the proceedings the authorities used uncoordinated measures which resulted in unnecessary delays.   He submits that his health deteriorated on account of these proceedings.   The applicant relies on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the first sentence of which states:           "1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations         or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled         to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an         independent and impartial tribunal established by law."           The Government submit that the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant can still be considered as being reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The case involved economic offences and was complex. The investigating judge required the opinions of various experts in order to clarify business and banking aspects of the case reaching back to 1972 and partly to redo company accounts to the extent that these had been based on false valuations.   The applicant did not always cooperate with the authorities.   Moreover, it was in accordance with his intentions that the proceedings against Dr.   Me were dealt with first.           The Commission considers that the applicant's complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings instituted and still pending against him raises difficult questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that its determination should depend on an examination of the merits.   The application is therefore not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and must be declared admissible, no other grounds for declaring it inadmissible having been established.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without in any way         prejudging the merits of the case.       Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                                 (C.A. NØRGAARD)     A P P E N D I X   Application No. 12100/86 GARZAROLLI v.   Austria       Summary of the proceedings     1   June 1977             Investigating judge at Wels District Court,                         upon application of Public Prosecutor, decides                         inspection of bank accounts concerning applicant   26 January 1978          Dr.   Ma appointed expert, opinion submitted                         after 3 months   22 May 1978              Vienna Police Direction submits reports on                         applicant   4 July 1978              Goods and accounts of fashion house seized   3 August 1978            Dr.   B appointed expert, opinion submitted                         after 6 weeks   14 May 1979              Search of the chancellery of the co-accused                         Dr.   Me   24 June 1980             Bill of indictment forwarded to Dr.   Me   2 March 1982             Dr.   Me convicted   4 May 1982               Preliminary investigations instituted against                         applicant   between 3 and 20 August 1982     33 witnesses heard   23 March 1984            Messrs.   D and H appointed experts, opinions                         submitted after 15 and 21 months   19 March 1986            Bill of indictment against applicant   16 June 1987             President of Austria refuses to terminate                         proceedings instituted against the applicant