CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 8 mai 1989

.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. 11894/85                       by Stefan TOTH                       against Austria             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 May 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 12 October 1985 by Stefan Toth against Austria and registered on 10 December 1985 under file No. 11894/85;           Having regard to:   -        the information provided by the respondent Government on         21 September 1987 and the reply submitted thereto by the         applicant on 12 October 1987;     -        the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         31 May 1988 and the reply submitted thereto by the applicant         on 18 July 1988;   -        the further observations submitted by the respondent Government         on 10 February 1989 and the reply submitted thereto by the applicant         on 13 March 1989;   -        the submissions of the parties at the hearing on 8 May 1989;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1953, is a tap room assistant (Schankbursche) resident in Graz in Austria. Before the Commission he is represented by Dr.   K. Hermann, a lawyer practising in Graz.   A.   Particular circumstances of the case           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   I.           On 1 June 1984 the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht) issued a warrant of arrest (Haftbefehl) against the applicant, who was then of unknown abode, on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, the offence of aggravated fraud (schwerer Betrug) according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) to the amount of 32,292 AS, together with a certain J.M.   In particular, the applicant had allegedly made out various uncovered cheques, drawn from bank accounts opened by J.M., and induced J.M. to cash them in in other banks.   The warrant of arrest stated with reference to Section 175 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) that there was a danger of absconding in view of the fact that the applicant's place of residence was not known, and that there was also a danger of repetition, namely that he would commit new offences of the same kind, since he had previously been convicted on a number of occasions.           On 24 August 1984, the Salzburg Regional Court issued an international search warrant (Steckbrief) against the applicant.   Therein, the Court referred to eleven instances of attempted or completed fraud amounting to over one million AS and concerning financial institutions in various towns in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Austria.   The warrant of apprehension mentioned as a third co-accused a certain Ch.   B.           In January 1985 the applicant was residing in Switzerland where he was heard by the Swiss authorities as a confidant (Mitwisser) to arson committed in Switzerland.   II.           On 11 January 1985 at 23h00 the applicant was arrested upon his entry into Austria at Graz airport and taken to the Feldkirchen constabulary.   On 12 January 1985 at 10h40 he was heard by the investigating judge at Graz Regional Court.   According to the document "Interrogation of the accused" ("Vernehmung des Beschuldigten") which constitutes the minutes of the hearing and was signed by the applicant, he noted that a warrant of arrest and a search warrant had been issued against him on suspicion of the offence of aggravated fraud.   He also noted that temporary custody (Verwahrungshaft) was being imposed on him according to Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds of a danger of collusion (recte: repetition) and of absconding, and that the Salzburg Regional Court which would be competent to order his detention on remand had been informed by telephone of the custody order.   Finally, the applicant stated: "for the time being I will not appeal against the custody imposed on me" ("Gegen die Verhängung der Verwahrungshaft erhebe ich vorläufig keine Beschwerde").         On 17 January 1985 he was apparently transferred to Vienna and on 22 January 1985 at 16h45 to Salzburg.   The co-accused J.M. was arrested on 17 December 1984.           On 23 January 1985 at 14h40 a judge at the Salzburg Regional Court heard the applicant.   According to the document "Interrogation of the accused", which was signed by the applicant, he noted that preliminary investigations (vorläufige Untersuchung) were being instituted against him though he would not object thereto.   The applicant also noted that his detention on remand had been ordered on the grounds of a danger of absconding and of repetition according to Section 180 paras. 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The applicant again stated that he did not object thereto.           In its decision of 23 January 1985 the Salzburg Regional Court ordered, with reference to the instances mentioned in the search warrant of 24 August 1984, the applicant's detention on remand, inter alia, on suspicion of attempted and completed fraud according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Criminal Code.   The Court stated further that the applicant had previously attempted to avoid prosecution by changing his residence for which reason there was a danger that, if he remained in liberty, he would abscond or hide in view of the prospective punishment.   The Court also saw a danger of repetition as the applicant was not socially integrated and without employment.   For this reason, it was to be feared that he would commit further offences, with severe consequences, of the same kind as the ones in respect of which he had twice been convicted previously.           This decision was handed to the applicant on 24 January 1985. He was heard by the investigating judge as to the reported facts (Anzeigetatbestände) on 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 January and 1 February 1985.   On 7 February the Swiss authorities announced their intention to prosecute the applicant.           On 15 February 1985 the applicant filed an application for his release from detention in which he claimed that he had employment and a permanent residence in Austria.           On 27 February 1985 the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) at the Salzburg Regional Court refused the application.   According to the decision, the applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing concerning the examination of the applicant's detention on remand (Haftprüfungsverhandlung).   The Chamber found that, while the applicant had referred to his social integration, there was an urgent suspicion that he had committed attempted or completed aggravated fraud together with two other persons.   Moreover, there was a danger of absconding in view of the fact that previously the applicant had attempted to avoid prosecution by changing his residence.   There was also a danger of repetition in view of the applicant's previous two convictions which concerned offences of the same type.           On 1 March 1985 the case-file was againt sent back to the investigating judge who was, however, on holiday until 15 April 1985. On 30 April 1985 the investigating judge heard the co-accused J.M. From 26 April to 1 May 1985 the applicant served a prison sentence apparently relating to a customs contravention.   On 15 May and 24 June 1985 the investigating judge requested information from two German banks.         On 19 June 1985, upon application of the investigating judge, the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) decided in camera to allow an extension of the applicant's detention on remand for up to eight months as from 23 January 1985.   The Court stated that there was urgent suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence of aggravated fraud, involving damages of more than two million AS.   The Court thereby referred to various reports to the police (Anzeigen), the police inquiries, and the statements made by the co-accused.   The Court also noted that the proceedings had become extraordinarily voluminous due to the multitude of facts and the contradictory statements of the applicant and other accused.   The Court found that, in the light of new results of the inquiries and the great volume and difficulty of the case, the Prosecution would first require an adequate period of time carefully to prepare the indictment and, possibly, the subsequent proceedings before the Jury Court.           The applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected as being inadmissible by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 22 August 1985.   The case-file was returned to the investigating judge on 11 September 1985.           On 12 September 1985 the applicant again applied for his release.           On 18 September 1985 the Linz Court of Appeal, upon application of the investigating judge, decided in camera that the applicant's detention on remand could be extended for up to 11 months. It thereby reiterated the grounds stated in the decision of 19 June 1985.           On 24 September 1985 the Regional Court decided that the preliminary investigations instituted against the applicant should be extended also to the offence of arson (Brandstiftung).   The applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) against this decision was rejected by the Review Chamber on 2 October 1985 which found, inter alia, that the applicant had failed to motivate his appeal.           Upon termination of the preliminary investigations the case-file was sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwalt- schaft) on 2 October 1985.   The latter applied on 31 October 1985 for the continuation of the preliminary investigations in order to complete the case-file.   These applications were granted on 7, 15 and 19 November 1985.   The case-file was then transmitted to the Linz Court of Appeal on 3 December 1985.           On 11 December 1985, upon application of the investigating judge and the Public Prosecutor's office, the Linz Court of Appeal extended in camera the applicant's detention on remand for up to 15 months.   After recalling the offences of which he was suspected and the danger of fleeing, which in the Court's view could not be prevented by a less severe measure, it stated in addition that the applicant was further suspected of having incited another person to burn down a restaurant in Switzerland, causing damages of 300,000 SF. The Court concluded that the investigations had not yet been completed on account of the voluminous materials.           Following the requests of the applicant and J.M. for release from detention on remand the case-file was transmitted to the Review Chamber at the Salzburg Regional Court.         On 2 January 1986 the Review Chamber dismissed the requests. At the deliberations a lawyer, either of the applicant or J.M., was present.   The Chamber found that according to the results obtained so far in the investigations the applicant was suspected of forgery as well as of having caused damages of up to 2 million AS to various financial institutions by issuing uncovered cheques.   On the same date the applicant was heard by the investigating judge and confronted with the co-accused S.R.           Also on 2 January 1986 the applicant was heard by an investigating judge.           The applicant's further appeal against the decision of 2 January 1986 was dismissed in camera on 22 January 1986 by the Linz Court of Appeal which thereby heard the Senior Public Prosecutor's Office (nach Anhörung der Oberstaatsanwaltschaft).   The Court found that if the applicant was released there would be a danger of his fleeing or hiding.   The Court further referred to previous convictions of the applicant, in particular one by the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Stuttgart in Germany which had sentenced the applicant to 20 months' imprisonment on charges of fraud and forgery. In view of the sentence to be expected in the case of conviction the Court of Appeal did not regard the length of detention so far as disproportionate.           A petition for release, which the applicant addressed to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), was dismissed by that Court as inadmissible in a decision issued on 28 February 1986.   III.           Meanwhile, on 26 February 1986 the preliminary investigations were closed and on 12 March 1986 the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant on the grounds of partly attempted and partly completed aggravated professional fraud according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Criminal Code, as well as of having forged a particularly protected document.           According to the bill of indictment, which numbered 17 pages, the applicant had drawn a number of cheques on various banks in Germany and Austria and given them to Ch.   B. and J.M. to cash them in in other banks in these countries.   The bill of indictment mentioned the applicant's previous two convictions on charges of fraud and of receiving stolen goods, respectively, and stated that he was being searched in the Federal Republic of Germany for nineteen instances of cheque fraud.   It referred to damages of 950,000 AS concerning completed fraud and 1,250,000 AS concerning attempted fraud.   In the bill of indictment the Public Prosecutor's Office stated that further investigations would be pursued in respect of the suspicion of arson and other instances of aggravated professional fraud.           The applicant's objection against the bill of indictment was dismissed, on 11 April 1986, by the Linz Court of Appeal which found that the results of the investigations sufficed to suspect the applicant of having committed the alleged offences, and it therefore committed the applicant for trial.         In a separate decision on the same day, upon application of the investigating judge, the Court of Appeal extended in camera the applicant's detention on remand for up to 17 months in view of the volume and difficulties of the investigations.   The Court referred to the bill of indictment of 12 March 1986 and found that no changes had occurred to the advantage of the applicant in respect of the findings of its previous decision of 22 January 1986.   IV.           On 30 April 1986 the case-file was transferred to the trial judge who on 23 May 1985 ordered the hearing to take place on 11 June 1986.   On 5 June 1986 the applicant's lawyer stated that he would no longer represent the applicant after 11 June 1986.           The applicant's trial commenced, and a first hearing took place, on 11 June 1986.   Thereafter, the hearing was adjourned.   An official defence counsel was appointed.           On 25 June 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court, and upon appeal the Linz Court of Appeal on 9 July 1986, dismissed the applicant's further request for his release from detention on remand, though the Court of Appeal decided that detention was no longer called for in respect of J.M. who had by then been remanded in custody for 25 months.   The Court of Appeal thereby decided in camera after hearing the Senior Public Prosecutor's Office.           On 24 July 1986 the Salzburg Regional Court contacted the Vienna Regional Court as to the witness Ch.B.   On 29 July 1986 a German court was requested to transmit a decision.           Further decisions authorising continued detention were taken by the Salzburg Regional Court on 30 July 1986 and, on the applicant's appeal, by the Linz Court of Appeal on 20 August 1986, both of which referred to the reasons given in the previous decisions.           On 22 September 1986 letters rogatory (Rechtshilfeersuchen) were transmitted to the Swiss Federal Police and to a German court in respect of the witness D.   The file was then sent to a forensic expert who prepared an expert opinion in respect of J.M. on 8 October 1986.           The Salzburg Regional Court again decided in camera on 12 November 1986, with reference to the previous decisions, not to release the applicant.   On 26 November 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.   It found that the applicant had been considerably implicated by J.M. and that he, the applicant, had not sufficiently substantiated his complaint that there was no longer a suspicion of his having committed the offences at issue.   In view of the damages stated in the bill of indictment, which exceeded one million AS, as well as the fact that he refused to admit the offences and that he had previously been convicted of offences of the same type, the length of detention was not yet disproportionate.           Meanwhile, the applicant unsuccessfully complained on 17 November 1986 that no date had been fixed for a hearing.   On 3 December 1986 a German court transmitted further evidence to the Austrian authorities as to the witness D.           Following the applicant's complaints about his officially appointed lawyer, the Bar Association stated on 16 December 1986 that they saw no reason to appoint a new lawyer.           On 12 and 16 December 1986 the trial judge requested the Dornbirn and Bregenz Constabularies to provide the addresses of two witnesses, Ch.B. and S.R.   A similar request in respect of Ch.   B. was filed with the Salzburg Federal Police Direction on 22 January 1987.           On 28 January 1987 the Review Chamber at the Salzburg Regional Court refused the applicant's request of 21 January for release from detention.           Upon the applicant's appeals, the Linz Court of Appeal decided on 18 February 1987 to release the applicant.   He was ordered to report every two days at the police station of his district.           On 9 July 1987 the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant in respect of further instances of fraud.   The bill of indictment which numbered 9 pages stated that the applicant had, together with a certain S.R., attempted fraudulently to cash uncovered cheques, whereby the damages amounted to approximately 800,000 AS.   The offences concerned banks in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.   The bill of indictment was sent to the applicant on 17 July 1987.   The applicant's appeal against the indictment of 9 July 1987 was dismissed by the Linz Court of Appeal on 30 September 1987.           On 30 September 1987 the Salzburg Regional Court partly granted the applicant's further complaint in that it decided that henceforth he had to report weekly to the police.   His appeal against this decision was dismissed on 4 November 1987 by the Linz Court of Appeal.           On 22 February 1988 the hearing was fixed for 25 and 26 May 1988.           On 26 May 1988 the Salzburg Regional Court orally pronounced its judgment whereby the applicant was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment.     B.   Relevant domestic law           The charges brought against the applicant concerned, inter alia, the offence of aggravated fraud which, according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Criminal Code, shall be punished with imprisonment lasting between one and ten years if the damage exceeds 100,000 AS. Insofar as the applicant was accused of committing offences abroad, in particular in Switzerland, S. 65 para. 2 of the Criminal Code states that in such cases the punishment must be determined in such a manner that, if all the effects are considered together (in der Gesamt- auswirkung), the perpetrator is not treated less favourably than he would be under the law of the place where the act has been committed.           The Code of Criminal Procedure states in Section 175 that the investigating judge may, upon a person's arrest, impose temporary custody (vorläufige Verwahrung) on him if there is a reasonable suspicion that he has committed a criminal offence and if there is a danger of absconding, collusion or repetition.   Section 176 para. 1 obliges the investigating judge to transmit the warrant of arrest to the accused immediately or at least within 24 hours after his arrest. According to Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appeal can be filed, at any time, against an order or a delay (Verfügung oder Verzögerung) of the investigating judge.           According to Section 180 paras. 1 and 2, detention on remand is ordered if the accused is seriously suspected of having committed a criminal offence, and if there is a danger of absconding, collusion, or repetition.   However, according to para. 3 of Section 180, a danger of absconding is not to be assumed if the accused is suspected of a criminal offence which will not be punished more severely than with five years' imprisonment; if the accused lives in orderly circumstances; and if he has a permanent residence in Austria, except if he has already attempted to abscond.           Section 193 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 1983, states that if the investigation is particularly voluminous or difficult the Court of Appeal can decide that detention on remand may last up to two years if it is ordered on the ground of a danger of collusion or for another reason, and if the offence at issue is threatened with a punishment which exceeds five years.   According to Section 193 para. 5 this time-limit for detention on remand no longer applies once the trial has commenced, as long as there are other grounds of detention than only the danger of collusion.           According to Section 195 para. 7, if the Public Prosecutor files a complaint against the decision of the Review Chamber to terminate detention on remand, the complaint is endowed with suspensive effect.   This is not the case if the applicant complains about the decision to continue detention on remand.   Finally, Section 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that the Review Chamber is a chamber of the court of first instance.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains inter alia that, contrary to Austrian law, within 24 hours after his arrest he did not receive a warrant of arrest, and no reasons were given for his arrest.   His temporary custody contradicted Austrian law in that it exceeded 24 hours.           He complains further that, contrary to Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Austrian authorities detained him on remand despite proof which he was able to furnish in respect of his social and economic integration and that he lived in orderly circumstances.           In addition, the applicant complains that his detention on remand was extended as from 12 January 1985 for eight months, yet he was not released on 12 September 1985, and the Court of Appeal decided only on 18 September 1985 on the further extension of his detention on remand.   Moreover his detention exceeded the maximum period determined in Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.           The applicant further complains of the length of his detention on remand.           He submits that preliminary investigations were instituted against him on 24 September 1985 on the ground of alleged incitement to arson in Switzerland.   However, this contradicted Section 65   para. 2 of the Criminal Code since when he was heard by the Swiss authorities in January 1985 he was only questioned as being a confidant to arson.           The applicant complains that the Linz Court of Appeal decided in non-public proceedings on his detention on remand without hearing him or his lawyer.   Moreover, his complaint against the prolongation of detention was not granted suspensive effect, whereas, according to Section 195 para. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor against the termination of detention on remand is endowed with suspensive effect, nor was there any court of third instance for the applicant's complaints concerning his continued detention.   He complains that his requests for release from detention of 8 and 30 May 1985 were not determined.           The applicant further complains of the obligation, after being released from detention, to report regularly to the police.   He refers to Section 193 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to which detention on remand as well as more lenient measures should be terminated as soon as the conditions for their imposition no longer exist.   He submits that, since the conditions for detention on remand according to Section 180 para. 2 are no longer fulfilled, the obligation to report is also unlawful.           The applicant also complains that the authorities did not decide speedily on his requests to be released from detention, and that on 11 December 1985 the Linz Court of Appeal extended his detention on remand to fifteen months although according to Austrian law this decision may not be taken earlier than six weeks before the first year of detention has expired.   The applicant also appears to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings.   He also complains of his obligation to report regularly to the police.           The applicant relies on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 12 October 1985 and registered on 10 December 1985.   Therein he raised various complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention concerning his arrest and detention.           The applicant filed a further letter with the Commission on 5 December 1985 in which he complained inter alia that in the proceedings before the Linz Court of Appeal neither he nor his lawyer were present and that legal remedies were limited in matters of detention on remand.   On 4 July 1986 he filed a letter in which, while referring to his previous submissions, he complained of the "delay tactics" (Verzögerungstaktiken) of the Salzburg Regional Court and the Linz Court of Appeal.   On 11 December 1986 he filed new complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention against the decision of the Linz Court of Appeal of 26 November 1986.           On 7 July 1987 the Rapporteur decided to request information from the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.           The information was provided by the respondent Government on 21 September 1987, and comments thereon were submitted by the applicant on 12 October 1987.         On 9 March 1988 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure in respect of the applicant's arrest, the length of detention, and the proceedings in which the legality of his detention was decided.           The respondent Government's observations were submitted on 31 May 1988 and the reply thereto by the applicant on 18 July 1988.           On 15 December 1988 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure to invite the Government to submit written observations in respect of the appeal proceedings in which the legality of the applicant's detention was decided.   The Commission also decided to invite the parties to an oral hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The respondent Government's further observations were submitted on 10 February 1989 and the reply thereto by the applicant on 13 March 1989.           At the hearing which was held on 8 May 1989 the parties were represented as follows:           For the Government           Ambassador Helmut TÜRK, Legal Adviser of the Ministry for         Foreign Affairs, Vienna           Mr.   Wolf OKRESEK, Adviser, Federal Chancellery, Vienna           Ms.   Irene GARTNER, Adviser, Federal Ministry of Justice, Vienna           Ms.   Ursula PLASSNIK, Adviser, Permanent Representation of         Austria to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg           For the applicant           Ms.   Karin HERMANN, Lawyer, Graz           The applicant was also present at the hearing.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that he did not receive a warrant of arrest within 24 hours after his arrest.   At the hearing of 12 January 1985 he was not questioned about the case.   His temporary custody contradicted Austrian law in that it exceeded 24 hours and lasted until 21 January 1985.   Contrary to Section 65 para. 2 of the Criminal Code the preliminary investigations were extended to the incitement of arson.   He could not file a complaint under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he was not told about this possibility. Finally, the Linz Court of Appeal extended his detention on remand up to 15 months before the first year of detention had expired.   The applicant invokes Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) of the Convention.         The Government observe that the applicant failed to employ a remedy under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The Government further submit that the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed cheque fraud and in view of a danger of absconding and of repetition, in order to be brought before the investigating judge at the Graz Regional Court.   He was brought before the investigating judge within twelve hours after his arrest.   He was thereby informed that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him and of the grounds therefor.           The Commission is not required to decide whether or not the applicant's above complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 5 or 6 (Art. 5, 6) as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law and only within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.           Insofar as the applicant complains that he did not receive the warrant of arrest, the Commission notes that the applicant was heard on 12 January 1985 by the Graz Regional Court.   He was thereby informed of an arrest warrant issued against him and the grounds therefor.   According to the document "Interrogation of the accused" of 12 January 1985 which the applicant signed, he was aware that there existed the possibility of an appeal.   As a result, he could have complained at the hearing that the imposition of temporary custody did not comply with Austrian law since he had not received the warrant of arrest.   However, according to the document "Interrogation of the accused", he stated that for the time being he did not raise any objections against the imposition of temporary custody.   He has therefore in this respect failed to exhaust the remedies available to him under Austrian law.           Insofar as the applicant complains that his temporary custody contradicted Austrian law in that it exceeded 24 hours, he has also not shown that he raised the complaint at issue either upon his interrogation on 23 January 1985 before the Salzburg Regional Court, or on any other occasion.   In particular, according to the document "Interrogation of the accused" of 23 January 1985, which was signed by the applicant, he noted that detention on remand was then being imposed on him and he expressly stated that he did not object to the institution of preliminary investigations.   The applicant has therefore also in this respect not exhausted the remedies available to him under Austrian law.           Insofar as the applicant complains that the preliminary investigations were extended to the alleged incitement to arson, the Commission notes that he filed an appeal against the extension of the preliminary investigations which was rejected by the Review Chamber on 2 October 1985.   However, according to that decision the applicant did not motivate the appeal.   The Commission considers therefore that the applicant did not raise in the domestic proceedings the complaints which he is now raising before the Commission.           The applicant finally complains that on 11 December 1985 the Linz Court of Appeal extended his detention on remand to fifteen months, although according to Austrian law this decision may not be taken earlier than six weeks before the first year of detention has expired.   However, the Commission notes that this complaint was submitted by the applicant to the Commission only on 18 July 1988 in his reply to the Government's observations, that is more than six months after the date of the contested decision.           Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal, or which might have interrupted or suspended the running of the period of six months respectively.           It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.a.     The applicant also complains that, contrary to Sections 175 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Austrian authorities detained him on remand despite proof which he was able to furnish concerning his social and economic integration and the orderly circumstances in which he lived.   The applicant contends that his detention on remand in fact commenced on 12 January 1985 and was eventually extended up to eight months; yet he was not released on 12 September 1985, and the Court of Appeal decided only on 18 September 1985 on the further extension of his detention on remand. The authorities moreover exceeded the maximum period of detention determined in Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The applicant relies on Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) of the Convention.           The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention, which provides that:           "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of         person.   No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in         the following cases and in accordance with a procedure         prescribed by law:           ...           (c)   the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected         for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal         authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an         offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to         prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having         done so".           The Commission recalls that it is not normally its task to review the observance of domestic law by the national authorities.   It may be otherwise in relation to matters where, as here, the Convention refers directly to that law.   For, in such matters, disregard of the domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, with the consequence that the Commission can and should exercise a certain power of review. However, it is for the national authorities in the first place, expecially the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and to settle any issues arising therefrom (cf.   Bonazzi v.   Italy, Comm. Report 19.3.81, DR 24 p. 33 ff, p. 53 f).         Insofar as the applicant complains, first, of his allegedly unjustified detention, the Commission has considered Sections 175 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Relevant domestic law above).   It notes that the warrant of arrest issued by the Salzburg Regional Court referred to the danger of the applicant absconding in view of his unknown place of residence and of his previous convictions for offences of the same type.   Later, when he was detained on remand by the Salzburg Regional Court on 23 January 1985 and the Review Chamber decided on 27 February 1985 not to release the applicant, both the Court and the Chamber sufficiently motivated their respective decisions.   The Review Chamber noted the evidence furnished by the applicant to show his social integration.   However, both the Court and the Chamber found that a danger of absconding could not be excluded in view of the fact that the applicant had previously attempted to avoid prosecution by frequently changing his residence.   There was also a danger of repetition in view of the applicant's previous convictions which concerned offences of the same kind.           The Commission further accepts that a danger of repetition could be assumed as the applicant was accused, inter alia, of having committed aggravated fraud, involving damages of more than 100,000 AS which, according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Criminal Code, shall be punished with imprisonment lasting between one and ten years.           As a result, the Commission finds no indication that the authorities acted contrary to Sections 175 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.           The applicant further complains that his detention was extended as from 12 January 1985 for eight months; yet the Court of Appeal decided only on 18 September 1985 that his detention on remand could be extended for up to 11 months.   However, the Commission notes that it was as from 23 January 1985 that the extension of his detention on remand was calculated.   As a result, the Commission finds that, when the Regional Court extended his detention on remand on 18 September 1985, it did so before the previous period would run out on 23 September 1985.           The applicant finally complains that his detention exceeded the maximum period of detention on remand as determined by Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.           The Commission has found above that the applicant was suspected of having committed, inter alia, the offence of aggravated fraud which according to Section 147 para. 3 of the Criminal Code shall be punished with imprisonment lasting between one and ten years. The authorities thus complied with Section 193 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that detention on remand may last up to two years only if the offence concerned is threatened with a punishment exceeding five years.   It is true that the applicant was detained on remand from 23 January 1985 until 13 February 1987, i.e. for longer than two years.   Nevertheless, Section 193 para. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that the time-limit in Section 193 para. 4 no longer applies once the trial has begun, and in cases where there are other grounds of detention than only the danger of collusion.   In the present case, the applicant was detained on remand on the grounds of a danger of absconding and of repetition.   In addition, the trial commenced and a hearing took place on 11 June 1986.   For these reasons, the time-limit in Section 193 para. 4 no longer applied to the applicant's detention on remand.   Finally, the Commission notes that the trial thus commenced before the period of 17 months previously fixed by the Court of Appeal on 11 April 1986 had expired.           As a result, the Commission is satisfied that the conditions for detention under Austrian law have been complied with.   The Commission concludes that in respect of these complaints the requirements under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention were fulfilled.   b.       The applicant also complains that, contrary to Austrian law, no reasons were given for his arrest within 24 hours thereafter.   The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 5 paras. 1 (c) and 2 (Art. 5-1-c, 5-2) of the Convention.   The latter paragraph provides:           "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a         language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest         and of any charge against him."           The Government observe that the applicant was informed within twelve hours after his arrest that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him on suspicion of aggravated fraud.   He was further informed of the grounds of detention, namely that there existed in his case a danger of repetition and of absconding.           As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention, and even assuming that he has exhausted domestic remedies in this respect within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission notes that at 10h40 on 12 January 1985, i.e. within twelve hours of his arrest on 11 January 1985 at 23h00, the applicant was orally informed by the investigating judge at the Graz Regional Court of the grounds of his arrest and detention.   The Commission considers that the applicant was therefore informed "promptly" of the reasons of his arrest and of the charges against him within the meaning of Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention.           Insofar as the applicant complains that contrary to Austrian law he was not given this information within 24 hours, the Commission considers that in fact he received this information within this time-limit, and no further issue arises in this respect under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.   c.       The applicant complains that his requests for release from detention of 8 and 30 May 1985 were not determined.   His complaints against the prolongation of his detention were not granted suspensive effect, whereas according to Section 195 para. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor against the termination of detention on remand is endowed with suspensive effect.   The applicant relies on Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, which states:           "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest         or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which         the lawfulness of his de