CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 octobre 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 }                                  Application No. 10533/83                                 by I.H.                                 against Austria          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 October 1989, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                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 I.H. 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 regard to:         - the Commission's decision of 10 March 1988 to declare part         of the application inadmissible and to bring the remainder         of the application to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits;         - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         29 July 1988 and the observations in reply submitted by the         applicant on 31 May 1989;           Having deliberated on 3 and 4 October 1989;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Hungarian refugee born in 1944 who came to Austria in 1964.   At the time of introducing the present application he was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders.   He was released in November 1984 and now resides in Vienna.   The present application concerns the circumstances of the applicant's above detention.           On 9 November 1972, the Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) of Vienna convicted the applicant of several criminal offences involving, inter alia, acts of physical aggression against his wife and clients.   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.   With regard to his conviction he filed an application with the Commission (No. 6398/73) which was declared inadmissible on 12 December 1974.           On 2 February 1973, the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna found the applicant guilty of a number of further offences (fraud, extortion, resistance against officials, etc.).   It imposed a prison sentence of five and a half years which 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 was found to be a difficult prisoner, mainly because he addressed numerous petitions and complaints 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, 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).   The applicant denies that there is a valid final decision in this respect. In 1983 the guardian was replaced by another guardian who continues to exercise his functions to the present day.           Having served the above two sentences on 13 May 1977, the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion 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)).           On 9 January 1978 the President of the trial court in the new case decided 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.           On 4 April 1978 a trial took place which 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 seeking 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 Court found the facts of three of the charges established (threats against a prison director and a judge, resistance 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 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.   The Court found the applicant to be a dangerous person 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 matter was 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.   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.           This judgment became final on 6 November 1980 as the applicant withdrew his plea of nullity.   The applicant contests that he validly waived this remedy.           The applicant 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 one year 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 carry out 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 after his release he would certainly refuse to undergo any treatment 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 an expert opinion obtained on 14 September 1984 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 (Rechtsquerulanz) 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 in reality 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.           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, including 71/2 years after completion of his two criminal sentences on 13 May 1977.   After this date he was detained           - until 27 November 1980 in the prison of the Regional           Criminal Court of Vienna (detention on remand, since           9 January 1978 carried out for some time as provisional           detention in an institution for mentally deranged           offenders (Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)           and as from 5 September 1979 as provisional detention in           a psychiatric hospital (Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of           Criminal Procedure);           - 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           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.   After a hunger-strike in December 1977 he was transferred for a week to the psychiatric hospital of Vienna and subsequently complained that he had been treated with sedatives against his will.   In view of increased aggressiveness the Vienna Regional Court on 20 June 1979 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 another 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 upheld 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 attempted 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 on a regular basis until August 1984 (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.           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 or which he wished to institute, 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.   Thus the applicant's first 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 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.   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.           During his detention on remand after 13 May 1977, the applicant's mail was in principle subject to control by the investigating judge under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   However, when the applicant was detained in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna, special arrangements were made for the control of his mail.   The hospital concluded an agreement with the applicant's guardian according to which the applicant's letters were no longer directly transmitted to the addressees, but collected and from time to time sent to the guardian, who then decided whether they should be forwarded or not.   Only letters addressed to the guardianship court and concerning the guardian's person as well as letters addressed to the applicant's defence counsel were excepted. This practice was apparently maintained from February 1977 until 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.           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 1977 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 he was not granted access, not even for the purpose of preparing his present application 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.           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.           However, after the institution of incapacitation proceedings in 1975, the applicant was no longer able to bring or conduct court proceedings himself.   Proceedings were adjourned by the Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) of Vienna and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) 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.   Numerous criminal proceedings brought by the applicant were subsequently discontinued failing the consent of his guardian.           After the adoption of the procedure whereby the applicant's mail was channelled through his guardian on a systematic basis, 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.     COMPLAINTS           Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant submits that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, in particular, that his detention after completion of his criminal sentences lacked any justification.   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)).   He was not 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 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, i.e. 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 concerned 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 allegedly deprived of his right of education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.           He submits 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, national origin or language, and were thus discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.   He further claims that they were abuses of the Austrian State contrary to Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention.           Finally, the applicant complains under Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that he was prevented from leaving Austria.   In 1979/1980 he tried to arrange his repatriation to Hungary, but this was made impossible by the Austrian authorities who insisted that in Hungary he should also be detained in a mental hospital.   The Hungarian authorities refused to take him back on this condition.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The applicant's first letter concerning the present case dates from 27 November 1978.   That letter was written on brown paper bags. The applicant complained, inter alia, that in the prison of the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna where he was then detained he was refused writing material also for letters to the Commission.   He referred to earlier letters written on wrapping paper and stated that the prison authorities had probably failed to forward these letters to the Commission as he had received no reply.   The letter of 27 November 1978 concluded by a postscriptum according to which a prison warden had refused to accept the letter for delivery in the morning of 28 November 1978.           This letter was received by the Commission on 31 January 1979.   The Secretariat's reply of 9 February 1979 referred to the obligation of the Contracting States under Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition.   With regard to his complaints under other Articles of the Convention the applicant was invited to show that he had exhausted domestic remedies.           The applicant wrote again to the Commission on 1 December 1979 and 24 April 1981, each time also complaining of interferences with his correspondence and the withholding of his files.   He was again invited by the Secretariat to show that he had exhausted domestic remedies.           On 2 June 1981 the applicant wrote that he was unable to submit any decisions as his files were still withheld from him.   The Commission's Secretary replied on 25 June 1981 that under Rule 38 of   the Commission's Rules of Procedure it was the applicant's duty to submit the relevant documents.   If he could not comply, he should ask his defence counsel or guardian.   An application form was enclosed.           The applicant submitted the completed form on 2 July 1981. However, the case was not immediately registered because he had used abusive language.   On 31 July 1981 he was warned that the Commission might consider the application as abusive within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention and a new application form was sent to him in order to give him an opportunity to set out his complaints in proper form.           On 3 February 1983 the applicant insisted on registration of the case on the basis of the application form which he had already submitted.   On 22 February 1983 he was again invited to complete the form in good order.   On 2 March 1983 he complained of the continued refusal to register his case stating that the second application form had been taken away by the prison administration.           The matter was then submitted to the Commission's President who, on 14 July 1983, ruled that the applicant should be provided with a new application form which he should complete in good order having regard, in particular, to any further developments in the case. Reference was again made to the authorities' duty not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition, also as regards access to the necessary files.           The applicant submitted the application form on 31 July 1983, stating that the documents were still being withheld from him.   The form reached the Commission on 22 August 1983 and the case was registered on the same day under file No. 10533/83.           On 14 October 1983 a member of the Commission, acting as Rapporteur, after carrying out a preliminary examination of the case, decided to request information from the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.   In particular, the Government were asked whether and, if so, for what reasons, the applicant had at any time been restricted or otherwise hindered in his correspondence with the Austrian authorities and/or the Commission.   The Government were further requested to state whether it was true that any documents which could be relevant to the applicant's complaints before the Commission were not available to him and, if so, on which legal basis they were being withheld.   In that case the Government were requested to submit the said documents to the Commission.           The Government replied to the request for information on 13 December 1983, stating, inter alia, that during his detention in the Regional Court's prison and in the special prison of Mittersteig the applicant had not been hindered in exercising his right to file applications by interfering with his correspondence or by retaining relevant documents.   The alleged restriction of his right to lodge applications and the alleged interference with his correspondence might perhaps be felt by the applicant to arise from the fact that his correspondence must first be shown to his guardian in view of his partial incapacitation.   The applicant had repeatedly been reminded of his duty under Section 92 para. 3 of the Criminal Law Enforcement   Act to pay the postal charges for his correspondence with the Commission.    As he had refused to bear these postal charges the correspondence concerned could not be dispatched.   The documents kept by the applicant were extremely voluminous (11 cardboard boxes, each weighing between 25 and 30 kilogrammes) and therefore could not be stored in his cell.   They were kept in a special locked store-room. Specific documents could always be handed out to him at his request, but he had insisted on having all 11 boxes.           In his comments of 31 December 1983, the applicant maintained that, contrary to the Government's assertions, he was still being hindered in the exercise of his right of correspondence, including correspondence with the Commission.   He further noted the Government's admission that he had not been granted access to his documents.           In a letter of 21 April 1984, the applicant stated again that the authorities continued to refuse him access to these documents.           On 21 May 1984 the Commission's Rapporteur, noting that it seemed impossible to obtain the relevant documents through the applicant, made a second request for information to the respondent Government, asking them under Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure to submit a full documentation of the case.           The Government submitted this documentation which fills 13 Leitz files on 11 July 1984, and the applicant submitted certain comments on 26 July and 25 October 1984.           Thereafter, the applicant continued to write very frequently to the Commission, raising various additional complaints even after his release from prison.           By a partial decision of 10 March 1988, the Commission declared certain complaints inadmissible, in particular concerning facts which had occurred before 27 May 1978, that is more than six months before the introduction of the application.   As regards facts which occurred after this date, the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to submit, before 3 June 1988, their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   This time-limit was subsequently extended until 1 August 1988.           The Government submitted their observations on 29 July 1988. The applicant was invited to submit observations in reply before 20 September 1988.   This time-limit was suspended on 29 September 1988 in view of his request for free legal aid.           This request had been made on 25 April 1988 and the necessary forms were sent to the applicant on 4 May 1988.   A reminder was sent on 22 July 1988.   In his reply of 19 August 1988 the applicant claimed that he had already submitted the legal aid forms on 23 May 1988.   As the forms had not been received by the Commission, the Secretary urged the applicant on 13 and 27 September 1988 to submit copies of the legal aid papers.   They were received on 14 October and transmitted to the Government for comments before 8 November 1988.   At the Government's request this time-limit was extended until 23 December 1988. The comments were submitted on 15 December 1988.           On 9 January 1989, the Acting President of the Commission granted free legal aid to the applicant whose lawyer was invited to submit observations in reply before 6 March 1989.   At the lawyer's request, this time-limit was extended until 31 May 1989 on which date he submitted his observations on behalf of the applicant.   THE LAW   a)       Deprivation of liberty   1.       Following its partial decision of 10 March 1988, the Commission is called upon to examine the applicant's complaint concerning his detention after 27 May 1978.           The applicant alleges that this detention was unlawful and unjustified, in particular that there were no sufficent reasons to order his detention on remand and/or his detention as a person of unsound mind, that the length of his detention on remand was excessive as he was not brought to trial within a reasonable time, that his requests for release were disregarded during his detention on remand and that the time-limits for the judicial review of his subsequent detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders were not respected.   He invokes Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:   "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:           (a)      the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;           ...           (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;           ...           (e)      the lawful detention of ... persons of unsound mind ...   3.       Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) (Art. 5-1-c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.   Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.   4.       Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.           ..."     2.       From 13 May 1977 until the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980 the applicant was kept in detention on remand which was partly carried out as provisional detention in a mental institution.           The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in that there were neither sufficient reasons for justifying his detention on remand under subparagraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), nor sufficient reasons justifying his detention as a person of unsound mind under subparagraph (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of this provision.   He further alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) in that he was not brought to trial within a reasonable time. The Government claim that the applicant's detention was covered by Article 5 para. 1 (c) and (e) (Art. 5-1-c, 5-1-e) and that the "reasonable time" requirement in Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) was respected.           The Commission considers that the applicant's above complaints are closely interrelated and cannot be separated.   In view of the considerable length of the detention in question (almost two years and eleven months between 13 May 1977 and 9 April 1980) the applicant's above complaints cannot be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   This part of the application must accordingly be examined as to the merits, no other ground of inadmissibility having been established.   3.       From 9 April 1980 until his release on 14 November 1984 the applicant was detained in a closed department of the psychiatric hospital of Vienna attached to the special prison of Mittersteig. Until 6 November 1980, the date when the applicant withdrew his plea of nullity against the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980, this detention continued to be regarded as detention on remand under Austrian law, but it was carried out as provisional detention in a psychiatric hospital.   After 6 November 1980 the detention in the same hospital was based on the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980, which had established that the applicant's acts fulfilled the objective conditions of criminal offences, but that he lacked criminal responsibility.   The expert evidence had revealed that the applicant's state of mind, although not amounting to a mental illness in the proper sense, was equivalent to such an illness and involved a potential of aggressiveness.    For this reason the Regional Court ordered the applicant's committal to an institution for mentally deranged offenders.           The applicant claims that he was never insane and that the aim of preventing vexatious litigation cannot justify detention in a mental institution.   He submits that also during this period his detention lacked justification and, in particular, that it was not covered by Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e).   The Government contend that, following the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980, the applicant was detained "after c