CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 mars 1988

.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. 10533/83                       by Istvan HERCZEGFALVY                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 March 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs. G.H. THUNE              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 27 November 1978 by Istvan HERCZEGFALVY against Austria and registered on 22 August 1983 under file No. 10533/83;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated on 29 February and 10 March 1988;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   I.         The applicant is a Hungarian refugee born in 1944 who came to Austria in 1964.   He soon married an Austrian woman and established himself as a self-employed businessman.   In particular, he ran a TV repair-shop in Vienna.           Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with acts of physical aggression against his wife (who had left him in December 1971) and certain of his clients. On 9 November 1972, the Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) of Vienna convicted him for several acts of extortion, deprivation of liberty, dangerous threats, inflicting bodily injuries on his spouse and ill-treating her.   In addition, the Court found him guilty of calumny and raising false suspicions.   It pronounced a prison sentence of two years.   This judgment was in substance confirmed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 28 June 1973. The applicant served his sentence until 13 May 1974.   As he considered that he had been wrongly convicted, he filed an application with the Commission (No. 6398/73) which, however, was declared inadmissible on 12 December 1974.           In the meantime, further criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant, essentially for offences connected with his business practices.   On 2 February 1973, the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna found him guilty of numerous acts of aggravated fraud, extortion, attempted theft, thwarting an enforcement procedure, resistance against officials, and defamation.   It imposed a prison sentence of five and a half years which, however, was subsequently reduced to three years by a decision of the Supreme Court of 12 December 1973.   The applicant served this sentence immediately after the first one, until 13 May 1977.           During his detention in various prisons the applicant turned out to be a difficult prisoner, mainly because of the numerous petitions and complaints which he addressed to various authorities concerning his allegedly wrongful convictions and his treatment in prison.   Because of his querulous behaviour, civil proceedings were eventually taken against him in 1975 by the prosecution authorities with a view to establishing a partial lack of legal capacity to act (beschränkte Entmündigung). After having heard psychiatric expert evidence in this respect, the District Court of Vienna City (Bezirksgericht Wien - Innere Stadt) by a decision of 23 December 1975 declared him to lack legal capacity, and appointed a guardian (Beistand) for him.   This decision became final on 3 November 1977 when it was confirmed by the Vienna Regional Court of Civil Affairs (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen).           After completion of the above two sentences on 13 May 1977, the applicant was not released, but remanded in custudy in connection with charges of having committed further criminal offences while in detention (assaults on prison wardens and fellow prisoners, uttering dangerous threats in letters addressed to the presiding judge of the first trial).    The warrant of arrest of 12 May 1977 was based on the grounds that the applicant might abscond and carry out his threat to commit further offences (Section 180 paras. 1(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung)).           As the applicant's vexatious behaviour deteriorated during his detention on remand and as he showed signs of increased aggressive- ness, the President of the trial court in the new case decided on 9 January 1978 that the applicant should be provisionally detained (vorläufige Unterbringung) in an institution for mentally deranged offenders (Anstalt für geistig abnorme Rechtsbrecher) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   This decision was based on the advice of several experts. It was confirmed by the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Court of Vienna on 6 March 1978, and by the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 19 April 1978.           A trial in the case had in the meantime been held on 4 April 1978 after the initial date set for this trial (2 November 1977) had been cancelled due to the necessity of taking further evidence.   The trial was interrupted due to the behaviour of the applicant.   The applicant was then examined by a psychiatric expert who expressed the view that the applicant suffered from paranoia querulans which could be considered as being equivalent to a mental illness and that he was therefore irresponsible for his acts.   In view of this expert opinion, the prosecution abandoned the original indictment aiming at the applicant's conviction and replaced it by a new one aiming at his detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders according to Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch).           A new trial was held before the Vienna Regional Criminal Court on 9 and 10 January 1979.   The applicant was initially present, but was excluded in the course of the trial under Section 430 para. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The Court found the facts of three of the charges established (threats against a prison director and a judge, resistence against officials, and bodily injury of a prison warden). It ordered the applicant's detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders under Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal Code, on the ground that he was a dangerous person who was not responsible for his acts under criminal law.           As regards the question of criminal responsibility, the Court took into account the expert opinions of three psychiatrists who all considered that, although there were no signs of a mental illness in the strict sense, the applicant nevertheless suffered from paranoia querulans with strong tendencies to aggression.   In this state of mind he had already committed the earlier criminal offences which had led to his criminal convictions in 1972 and 1973, but the symptoms had aggravated during the period of his subsequent detention.   At least since 1975, the querulous behaviour had reached the level of a serious mental instability equivalent to a mental illness, preventing the applicant from realising the unlawfulness of his behaviour and from acting lawfully.           In its finding that the applicant was a dangerous person, the Court again followed the opinion of the above three experts, confirmed by its own impression, that the applicant was totally incapable of realising his guilt and was ridden by the obsession that he must fight against his "persecutors" not only by a flood of petitions and complaints but also by threats and physical acts of aggression.            The applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) against this decision was in part successful.   By a decision of 3 October 1979, the Supreme Court confirmed the findings concerning the first charge (dangerous threats) but quashed those relating to the second and third charges on the ground that the trial court had failed to hear certain witnesses.   The numerous other complaints alleging grounds of nullity which the applicant had submitted were all rejected. The order to detain the applicant in an institution for mentally deranged offenders was nevertheless quashed, and the matter referred back to the Regional Court for a new trial.           This trial took place on 20 March and 9 April 1980.   It covered the two charges in relation to which the Supreme Court had quashed the earlier judgment, and a new charge of dangerous threats against the same judge as before.   After the taking of voluminous evidence , the facts of all three offences were found to be established. The Court again ordered the applicant's detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders under Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal Code, on the grounds stated in its earlier judgment of 10 January 1979.   It also relied on new expert evidence showing that the situation had not essentially changed despite some improvement which had been brought about by the applicant's psychiatric treatment. In this connection, reference was made in particular to a new offence committed since the last judgment. The taking of further expert evidence was not considered as necessary as the existing expert opinions did not contradict each other and were conclusive.           The applicant withdrew his plea of nullity against this judgment which therefore has become final.           However, he repeatedly challenged his continued detention in the institution for mentally deranged offenders.           After the Supreme Court's judgment of 3 October 1979 had been served on the applicant, he requested his release, but this request was rejected by the Review Chamber on 28 January 1980.           The detention ordered by the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980 was maintained by a decision of the same Court of 8 February 1982 on the ground that the applicant continued to be a dangerous person as confirmed by a report of the psychiatric hospital.           In July, September and October 1983, the applicant again requested his release, observing that no decision ordering his continued detention had been taken within the statutory time limit (Section 25 para. 3 of the Penal Code), which had expired on 8 February 1983.   The Court of Appeal on 14 February 1984 referred the matter to the Regional Court. Two days later, on 16 February 1984, the Regional Court ordered the applicant's continued detention.   It found that, according to the report of the psychiatric hospital, the applicant's state of mental health had not essentially changed.   He still continued to write vexatious complaints without the consent of his guardian whose appointment he did not accept, and if released he would presumably raise numerous claims.   At the same time, it could not be predicted whether he would make true any of the threats previously uttered in particular against the prison staff.   His paranoia querulans could not be stopped even with modern medical treatment.   The treatment which he actually received had a sedative effect which might end with his release as he was opposed to this treatment, considering himself to be sane.   As he would certainly refuse to undergo any treatment after his release which, however, was absolutely necessary, the danger which was at the basis of his detention continued to exist.           The applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) against this decision was rejected by the Vienna Court of Appeal on 4 April 1984.   It considered that the Regional Court had arrived at the correct conclusions on the basis of the very detailed expert opinion of the director of the psychiatric hospital and a supplementary report by another psychiatrist.           The applicant was eventually released by a decision of the Regional Court of 14 November 1984.   On the basis of the expert opinion obtained it noted that there had been no essential improvement of the applicant's state of health.   His paranoia querulans continued to exist, it had even developed by acquiring   a political component after the applicant's treatment with injections had been discontinued, and he had still recently uttered serious threats. However, the querulous behaviour was primarily concerned with the detention (Haftquerulanz) and the vexatious litigation (Rechts- querulanz) was only a secondary phenomenon.   The latter would probably continue to exist even after a release, but vexatious complaints, petitions etc. did not constitute a danger within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code.   The querulous behaviour concerning the detention on the other hand would cease in the case of a conditional release.   A genuine aggressiveness had been observed only on rare occasions since the commission of the offences which had led to the applicant's detention.   It was to be assumed that the applicant would seek to redress the wrong allegedly or even really done to him first of all by querulous complaints.   While it could not be excluded that he would become aggressive in the case of frustration, there was from the psychiatric point of view no acute danger that he would commit criminal offences with grave consequences because of his abnormal personality.   A conditional release was therefore now possible.   A further psychiatric treatment or treatment by drugs was no longer considered necessary by the expert, although it was recommended.   II.      By the date of his release on 14 November 1984, the applicant had been detained without interruption under various legal titles since 15 May 1972, i.e. for 121/2 years.           In particular, the applicant was detained in the following institutions:           - until 30 January 1974 in the prison of the Regional Criminal           Court of Vienna;           - until 3 February 1975 in the prison of Stein;           - until 24 August 1975 in the special prison for mentally           deranged offenders, Mittersteig;           - until 30 October 1975 in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna           (observation in connection with civil incapacitation           proceedings);           - until 7 January 1977 again in the special prison,           Mittersteig;           - until 12 May 1977 in the prison of Graz;           - until 27 November 1980 in the prison of the Regional           Criminal Court of Vienna (detention on remand, since           January 1978 provisional detention as a mentally           deranged offender, interrupted by lengthy periods in           the psychiatric hospital of Vienna and the psychiatric           university clinic of Vienna);           - until his release on 14 November 1984 in a closed           department of the psychiatric hospital of Vienna           attached to the special prison of Mittersteig.           Throughout his detention, the applicant was considered a particularly difficult prisoner and was therefore subjected to very close supervision.   The measures applied may be summarised as follows:           Medical treatment           Apart from his mental instability, which was the subject matter of many psychiatric reports, the applicant also suffered from other health problems.   In the prison of Stein he suffered from lumbago which was allegedly due to the conditions of detention.   The applicant was transferred to the prison hospital for lengthy periods.   He subsequently complained to various authorities that he had not received adequate medical treatment.   He further claimed that he was unfit for detention, but his requests to be released for this reason were rejected by the competent courts.   Apparently because of these decisions the applicant went on hunger-strike from October until December 1974.   During the hunger-strike he was detained in isolation and examined by a medical officer about once a week.   Eventually it became necessary to provide for more intensive care in the Krems civil hospital.           During his subsequent detention as a convicted prisoner in the prisons of Mittersteig and Graz the applicant again complained of inadequate medical treatment.           In Mittersteig the diagnosis of lumbago was originally confirmed and an ulcer was found in March 1975.   However, in August 1975 the prison doctor found no signs of any disease and this was confirmed by a university clinic.   It was recorded that the applicant's health troubles seemed to be simulated.   It appears that the applicant was nevertheless given medicaments for stomach troubles, but no other treatment.           A prison doctor in Graz subsequently confirmed stomach and spinal troubles which, however, did not make the applicant unfit for detention.           During the subsequent detention periods it was mainly the applicant's mental troubles which led to medical or, more particularly, psychiatric treatment.   Already in November 1976 the applicant's guardian had suggested that the applicant should be subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment in order to prevent vexatious complaints.   A psychiatric report of the special prison of Mittersteig of December 1976 stated that the applicant suffered from a paranoid complex with temporary fits of excitement.           In December 1977 the applicant staged a second hunger-strike in the prison of the Regional Court of Vienna.   A psychiatric consultant of the prison thereupon recommended his provisional detention in a psychiatric hospital as he considered the applicant dangerous to the public and possibly also to himself.   The applicant was transferred for a week to the psychiatric hospital of Vienna and subsequently complained that he had been treated with sedatives against his will.           After a relatively calm period, the applicant showed increased aggressiveness in June 1979.   On 20 June 1979 the Vienna Regional Court ordered four weeks' detention in a security cot (Gitterbett) which was carried out in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna from 18 June to 23 July 1979.   Upon his return to the Regional Court's prison, the applicant began a third hunger-strike to protest against his continued detention and deprivation of his files.   He had a complete breakdown on 28 August 1979.           On 29 August 1979 the Vienna Court of Appeal ordered the Regional Court's Review Chamber to deal with a complaint of the applicant against his detention in a security cot.   On 5 September 1979 the Review Chamber decided to replace that measure by provisional detention in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna (Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) subject to intensive medical, socio- and psychotherapeutical treatment.   The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision on 12 October 1979 in view of psychiatric reports confirming that the applicant presented an acute danger to the public and to himself, justifying his compulsory psychiatric detention under Section 50 of the Hospital Act (Krankenanstaltengesetz).           The applicant subsequently requested the institution of criminal proceedings against doctors and nurses because of his having been kept with fetters in the security cot and having been compulsorily treated with sedatives ("Niederspritzen"), alleging that these measures amounted to an attempt of murder.   However, in view of the guardian's consent to the compulsory treatment (14 December 1979) no charges seem to have been laid by the prosecution.           After these events the applicant remained most of the time in the psychiatric clinic of Vienna where he continued to be treated with sedatives until August 1984 on a regular basis (depot injections every 28 days).   It further appears that from 1979 until the summer of 1982 the applicant observed a hunger-strike, during which he was subject to compulsory feeding.   Thereafter he underwent a work-therapy which he stopped in the summer of 1984 after his guardian had seized the applicant's remuneration (AS 3900.-) for the purpose of covering his fees.           Access to court           In particular during the first period of his detention the applicant was involved in numerous court (divorce, incapacitation, business-related civil and enforcement proceedings) and administrative proceedings (residence status, taxation, unauthorised use of title etc.).   He was frequently brought to court hearings, but this became more difficult when he was detained outside Vienna where most proceedings took place.           The prison administration in Stein initially allowed frequent transports (Ausführungen) to Vienna, but later refused several transports on the ground that the applicant was not prepared to bear the costs.   The applicant complained that the costs were exaggerated and that he was unable to bear them.   The prison administration rejected these complaints, but did not issue a written decision as requested by the applicant.   Upon the applicant's further complaint the Federal Ministry of Justice eventually ruled in 1977 that the withholding of a written decision had been unlawful.   It did not deal with the question of whether the refusal of transport on the above ground had been justified.           During the applicant's hunger-strike in Stein a number of transports were refused on the ground of the applicant being unfit for transport.   A complaint to the Ministry in one of these cases was eventually rejected in 1977 for lack of legal interest because, in that case, the Vienna Commercial Court's judgment in default issued against the applicant had subsequently been quashed for violation of his right to be heard.           The special prison of Mittersteig initially adopted a rather liberal approach concerning transport to court hearings, hoping that this would lead to an improvement of the applicant's state of mind. However, after incidents in the summer of 1975 the prison governor reported to the Ministry of Justice that this expectation had been disappointed.   Subsequently the applicant was taken to court hearings free of charge only when there was a court summons.           After the institution of incapacitation proceedings in 1975, the applicant was no longer able to bring court proceedings himself. Proceedings were adjourned by the Commercial Court of Vienna and the Administrative Court pending the conclusion of the incapacitation proceedings.   As regards the institution of criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled on 10 March 1977 that the consent of the guardian was required according to the circumstances of each case.   A hierarchical appeal about a delay in the criminal proceedings concerned was thereupon rejected.   Numerous other criminal proceedings brought by the applicant were subsequently discontinued failing the consent of his guardian.   However, there is no indication that the applicant's plea of nullity against the judgment of 1980 (cf. p. 4 above) was invalid, or that it was withdrawn in view of doubts as to its validity (cf. p. 13 below).           As regards complaints to the visiting judge relating to detention and treatment in prison (Arrestvisite), it was clarified by a ruling of the President of the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna in July 1977 that each prisoner must have the possibility to speak to the judge.   The applicant had not been given this possibility during several consecutive visits in May and June 1977.           It finally appears that, after the adoption of the procedure whereby the applicant's mail was channelled through his guardian on a systematic basis (see below), the applicant was in principle prevented from instituting complaints and other proceedings.   This procedure was apparently maintained from 1977 until the date of the applicant's release in November 1984.           Access to files           In connection with the numerous proceedings in which he was involved or which he tried to start, the applicant kept voluminous files in his cell, but he was repeatedly deprived of these files.           All files were removed from his cell in Mittersteig in August 1975 after a search had led to the discovery of unauthorised items. The measure aimed at a close control of the applicant's papers by the prison governor, and it was stated that this did not interfere with his procedural rights.   The papers were subsequently kept with the applicant's personal deposits until November 1975, the applicant being told that he was entitled to request the return of any specific documents.           In October 1976 the applicant laid a criminal information against his guardian who had not consented to his consulting the file which then was refused by the authority.           A report of January 1977 to the Ministry of Justice stated that consultation of the file had been interrupted as the applicant had crossed out certain passages.           In July 1977 the applicant was allowed to consult the file for a total of 35 hours under special supervision in the Regional Criminal Court's prison.   The access to the file was interrupted on 9 September on the ground that the applicant had abused this right.           On 7 November 1977 his cell was controlled and thousands of pages removed to the deposits.   The prison administration subsequently reported this measure to the Ministry and to the applicant's guardian. On 9 December the Ministry instructed the prison to grant the applicant access to the files at any time, although it did not object to their removal from the cell.           In August 1979 the cell was searched and voluminous files removed to the deposits.   They were returned to the applicant in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna on 25 September 1979, despite doubts of the prison administration and the Ministry, because it was thought that possession of the files could contribute to the success of the psychiatric treatment.   However, it appears that the files were removed again and taken to the deposits after a short period.           At the trials in 1979 and 1980 the applicant complained that the deprivation of his files had hindered the preparation of his defence.   His requests to adjourn the proceedings for this reason were rejected.           It appears that after the applicant's committal for detention as a mentally deranged offender his voluminous files were not available to him in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna, but were kept in a special room to which the applicant was not granted access, not even for the purpose of preparing his present petition to the Commission.   According to the Government's submissions, the applicant could, however, request the handing out of specific documents.   He did not make such requests but insisted on access to the whole of the files.   His attempts in 1982 to get permission for consultation of the file by a (non-practising) lawyer with whom he was acquainted also failed.           Control of correspondence           Throughout his detention the applicant conducted correspondence on an extremely large scale, including private and business letters and first of all letters, petitions and complaints addressed to various authorities in connection with the numerous proceedings in which he was involved and also concerning his treatment in prison, including the handling of his correspondence.           In their attempts to reduce the flood of correspondence the authorities resorted to different measures, including temporary restrictions on the use of writing material.           Use of a typewriter and writing material were already refused during the applicant's first detention in the Regional Criminal Court's prison in Vienna.           In Stein prison the applicant was refused prison paper, envelopes and paper for making copies.   Business letters and letters to his lawyer written on other than prison paper were not accepted for delivery.           In Mittersteig special prison it was ordered in August 1975 that paper and complaint forms should be handed out to him in each case only following a specific request.   A petition on toilet paper was forwarded to the Federal Ministry of Justice on 23 August 1975. On 8 September a request for 110 sheets of paper and 25 envelopes was refused and unauthorised writing material removed.   The specific request-requirement was apparently maintained during the subsequent detention in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna.           In October 1977 the applicant complained to the Ministry that he was not given sufficient writing paper in the Regional Criminal Court's prison.   The prison administration commented that he was given sufficient prison paper, that he was also entitled to buy paper, and that it was not therefore necessary to use wrapping paper as he had done.   After a search of the cell in November the prison reported to the Ministry that the applicant had sufficient writing paper.   The applicant was reminded that one set of writing material was considered sufficient and was told that petitions on wrapping paper etc. could not be accepted.           It appears that writing material was withheld from the applicant also at later dates.   Thus a letter to the Commission of 27 November 1978 was written on brown paper bags and the applicant stated that he had been refused other paper and had also complained of this to the Ministry.   Most of the applicant's subsequent letters to the Commission were according to him smuggled out under circumvention of the prison rules because he did not get sufficient writing material or permission to write.           As regards delivery of correspondence, the applicant also encountered difficulties on numerous occasions, both concerning the incoming and outgoing mail.   The applicant was particularly aggrieved by the fact that, during his detention in the prisons of Stein and Mittersteig, official communications addressed to him by courts and other authorities, including summonses to appear at court hearings, court decisions etc., were not handed to him personally but only read out to him and kept in the prison files.   He repeatedly refused to acknowledge receipt of such letters by his signature on the special return sheet provided for such official deliveries.   The letters in question were then deposited in the Post Office or returned to the sender.   The applicant was advised on 21 July 1975 that he must bear the consequences.   His complaints to the Ministry of Justice and his attempts to institute criminal proceedings for suppression of his mail failed.           As regards outgoing mail, the applicant was repeatedly advised of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Law Enforcement Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz), in particular that letters must be submitted in unsealed envelopes, that they must be correctly addressed and that he must pay the postage.   He was also advised repeatedly that it was inadmissible to request an authority other than the prison, e.g. the Ministry of Justice, to forward letters to other addresses on his behalf.   Such letters were regularly returned to him.           The payment of postage developed into a special issue of confrontation with the authorities.   The applicant claimed that he was unable to pay postage from the money available to him for this purpose (Eigengeld), and that the postage must therefore be paid by the State. However, the authorities did not accept this view and frequently refused to forward letters without stamps.   On 27 January 1977 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the postage was, in principle, to be paid by the applicant from his own money, and that letters without postage should not be accepted for transmission.   Only letters addressed to authorities competent for criminal matters were to be forwarded through the official channels.           It appears that in practice most letters addressed to authorities and courts were in fact transmitted to them, despite the applicant's failure to pay postage, while other letters without postage were returned to the applicant, including letters to his lawyer, to the Chamber of Medicine, and the Police Headquarters in Vienna.   The applicant nevertheless consistently maintained his practice of submitting letters without postage.   He continued to do so even after his release and he has also posted letters to the Commission without stamps on numerous occasions.   Some were returned and when the applicant refused to pay additional postage they were retained by the Post Office and not handed back to him.           According to the provisions of the Criminal Law Enforcement Act, the applicant's mail was subject to censorship by the prison governor or his representative.   In the prison of Stein this censorship was exercised systematically in each case and not only at random as is usual practice.   This measure was based on Section 129 of the above Act which allows the prison governor to order appropriate modifications of the general prison regime in cases of mentally deranged persons.   The same approach seems to have been taken subsequently in the special prison of Mittersteig.           Numerous letters were stopped, in particular on the ground of abusive language or distortion of facts.   They included letters to the applicant's (ex-)wife and her employer, to his relatives in Hungary (which were first translated by the services of the Ministry of Justice), to the Soviet Embassy, to newspapers and the Austrian radio and even one letter addressed to the Commission on 25 July 1974 (on the ground that it contained unjustified complaints about the prison).           The applicant complained that also other letters to the Commission had not been delivered, and this led to investigations by the Ministry of Justice.   Eventually it was found that all letters to the Commission had in fact been transmitted to the latter (note of 16 December 1974).   The practice followed with complaints to the Commission (and also the UN High Commissioner for Refugees) was apparently to submit the relevant letters, or copies thereof, to the Ministry, sometimes with comments by the prison administration.           Letters addressed to Austrian courts could not be stopped even if they contained abusive language (Section 90/4 of the Criminal Law Enforcement Act), but letters addressed to individual judges were stopped on some occasions.   Such letters and letters to prison officials also led to disciplinary sanctions and the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant.           Letters to the Federal Ministry of Justice or prosecution authorities were generally transmitted to them, often with comments by the prison on the matters raised in the said letters.           After the appointment of a guardian for the applicant, his letters addressed to the various authorities were no longer directly transmitted to them but collected and from time to time sent to the guardian, who then decided whether they should be forwarded or not. This practice was apparently maintained throughout the period between February 1977 and February 1980.   During the time in which the applicant was detained in the psychiatric hospital in 1979, the transmission of his correspondence was nevertheless handled by the prison administration.           No details have been provided concerning the practice after February 1980, but it appears that, in principle, the control of the mail by the guardian was maintained until the applicant's release in November 1984.           Disciplinary sanctions           The applicant was repeatedly subjected to disciplinary sanctions, in particular periods of house arrest or segregation from other prisoners.   Such measures were, in particular, taken during the two periods of detention in the prison of the Vienna Regional Court, and in the ordinary prisons of Stein and Graz, inter alia on the ground that the applicant had written insulting letters to court and prison officials.   The special prison of Mittersteig took the view that such offences were due to his mental troubles and therefore did not impose disciplinary sanctions.   COMPLAINTS           In the application form submitted on 31 July 1983 the applicant did not invoke any specific provision of the Convention.   In a subsequent letter of 25 October 1984 he stated that at the relevant time the text of the Convention had not been available to him, and he added that he wished to submit complaints under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 paras. 1 and 2, 5 paras. 1 - 5, 6 paras. 1 - 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 25 and 60 of the Convention as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.           The applicant claims that he was wrongly convicted in 1972 and 1973, the charges against him having been fabricated by his wife and lawyers acquainted with her.           He further claims that the facts concerning the charges of aggressive behaviour during his detention were also wrongly established and that it had not been him but the prison staff who had been aggressive.   He further challenges the relevant court proceedings on various grounds under Article 6 of the Convention:   the judges and experts were allegedly biased against him, he could not defend himself properly, the indictment was not served upon him, he was unable to appoint a lawyer of his own choice, he was deprived of his files and excluded from the trial in January 1979, and his requests for further expert evidence, including a faculty opinion, were rejected at the trial in April 1980.   Finally he was led by false promises to withdraw his plea of nullity against the judgment of 9 April 1980.           Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant submits that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty for 13 years.   He claims that his convictions in 1972 and 1973 were not lawful (Article 5 para. 1 (a)) and that, in particular, his detention after completion of the sentences resulting from these convictions lacked any justification. Moreover, he was detained on remand from 13 May 1977 until 9 April 1980, but when this measure was ordered there was no reasonable suspicion of his having committed any criminal offence nor any reason to assume that he would abscond or commit further offences (Article 5 para. 1 (c)).   The warrant of arrest was not served upon him (Article 5 para. 2) and he was not promptly brought before a judge, nor released or brought to trial within a reasonable time (Article 5 para. 3). Because he was deprived of writing material he was prevented from submitting written requests for release and was compelled to make such requests orally to the visiting judge. However, all these requests were either suppressed or disregarded and no decision was taken on them (Article 5 para. 4).   The same applied to his requests for compensation (Article 5 para. 5).           Insofar as his detention in psychiatric hospitals is concerned, the applicant contends that it was totally unjustified as he was never a person of unsound mind.   His allegedly vexatious behaviour which was considered equivalent to a mental illness was, in his opinion, no more than the legitimate exercise of his right of defence against the various unlawful measures taken against him.   The applicant finally argues in this context that his incapacitation was unlawful as under Section 13 of the Incapacitation Act (Entmündigungs- ordnung) such a measure could not be taken against a foreign national.           The applicant raises numerous complaints concerning the conditions of his detention:           He complains under Article 2 of the Convention that, due to acts of physical ill-treatment and lack of appropriate medical care, his life was put in danger on frequent occasions.           He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or torture by the conditions of his detention.   In this context he again complains of physical and mental ill-treatment, isolated detention under appalling conditions for lengthy periods, being kept with fetters in a security cot for a considerable time, lack of appropriate medical care, compulsory feeding during lengthy periods of hunger-strike (altogether more than three years) and compulsory treatment with neuroleptic drugs against his will during most of the time of his detention in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna.           The applicant considers that during his detention he was without any rights and thus practically kept in slavery contrary to Article 4 para. 1 of the Convention.   Between October 1982 and June 1984 he was subjected to a work therapy in the psychiatric hospital and received a very low renumeration.   He stopped working when he learnt that his guardian had seized the money (AS 3900.-) in order to cover his fees. In the applicant's view this situation amounts to compulsory labour contrary to Article 4 para. 2 of the Convention.           The interference with his private life and correspondence amounted in his view to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention which was not justified by paragraph 2 of this provision.   He further submits that the interference with his correspondence and the withholding of his files also affected his rights under Article 6 of the Convention. Insofar as the interference with correspondence concerned his communications with the Commission he invokes Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention.           The applicant alleges that in prison he was not allowed to participate in religious ceremonies and that therefore his right under Article 9 was violated.           He sees further interferences with his rights under Article 9 (freedom of thought and conscience) and Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) in the fact that his attempts to criticise the various measures taken against him led to serious sanctions.   Article 10 (freedom of information) is also invoked insofar as he was kept for lengthy periods in complete isolation, without radio, television, books and journals.   By the same measures he was deprived of his right of education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.           He had no possibility to complain effectively of the various measures taken against him and therefore alleges a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.           The measures in question were allegedly taken against him because of his race, na