CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 décembre 1989

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7C285904 { width:10.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1F7F12F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s589F1A46 { width:25.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAC9CE5D8 { width:39.7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6F515D3 { width:105.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4951E809 { width:77.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34735772 { width:210.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6134A3C9 { width:54.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEC88BBA { width:199.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAE2C6750 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8AB0B9E4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s76AF6B1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CB67CBD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s22EC78FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFBE87F32 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDC07F891 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6F620A68 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF75BE896 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       COURT (CHAMBER)             CASE OF KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA   (Application no. 9783/82)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   19 December 1989 In the Kamasinski case [] , The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   R. Ryssdal , President ,   Mr   F. Matscher ,   Mr   J. Pinheiro Farinha ,   Sir   Vincent Evans ,   Mr   R. Macdonald ,   Mr   J. De Meyer ,   Mr   J.A. Carrillo Salcedo , and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen , Registrar , and Mr H. Petzold , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 23 June and 23 November 1989, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.    The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 18 July 1988, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 9783/82) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 6 November 1981 by Mr Theodore Kamasinski, who is a citizen of the United States of America. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to Austria’s declaration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the request was to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or not the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6, 13 and 14 (art. 6, art. 13, art. 14) of the Convention. 2.    In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and sought leave to present his case himself, subject to his being assisted by a named attorney from the United States of America. The President of the Court granted such leave on 1 September 1989 in relation to the written procedure (Rule 30 § 1). 3.    The Chamber to be constituted included, as ex officio members, Mr F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, President of the Court (Rule 21 § 3 (b)). On 29 September 1988 the President of the Court drew by lot, in the presence of the Registrar, the names of the other five members, namely Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr J.A. Carrillo Salcedo and Mrs E. Palm (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 4) (art. 43). Subsequently Mr J. De Meyer, substitute judge, replaced Mrs Palm, who was unable to take further part in the consideration of the case (Rules 22 § 1 and 24 § 1). 4.    Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 5). He ascertained, through the Registrar, the views of the Agent of the Austrian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the Commission and the applicant as to the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 § 1). Thereafter, in accordance with the Orders and directions of the President, the memorial of the Government was lodged at the registry on 24 January 1989 and that of the applicant on 1 February 1989. By letter received on 9 March 1989 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would submit his comments at the oral hearing. 5.    After consulting, through the Registrar, those who would be appearing before the Court, the President directed on 3 April 1989 that the oral proceedings should open on 19 June 1989 (Rule 38). 6.    On 25 April the Chamber decided (a) that it could take no action in regard to the applicant’s challenge of the member of the Commission appointed as Delegate (Rule 29 § 1); (b) that it was not necessary for its consideration of the case to hear certain witnesses proposed by the applicant (Rule 40); (c) to reject the applicant’s objection to the rendering public of his memorial prior to final judgment in his case (Rules 18 and 55). 7.    On the same day the President (a) at the applicant’s request, invited the Commission to produce various documents to the Court; (b) refused the applicant leave to present his own case at the oral hearing (Rule 30 § 1). Such of the requested documents as were in the Commission’s file were lodged at the registry on 7 June 1989, together with other material judged by the Commission to be of interest to the Court. On 8 June the President gave leave to the applicant to be represented at the oral proceedings by the American lawyer who had been assisting him. 8.    The hearing took place in public at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on the appointed day. Immediately prior to its opening the Court had held a preparatory meeting. There appeared before the Court: - for the Government   Mr H. Türk , Legal Adviser,       ²Ministry of Foreign Affairs,   Agent ,   Mr W. Okresek , Federal Chancellery,   Mrs I. Gartner , Federal Ministry of Justice,   Counsel ; - for the Commission   Mr F. Ermacora ,   Delegate ; - for the applicant   Mr A. D’Amato , Professor of Law,       Northwestern University, Chicago,   Counsel ,   Mrs R. Gorbach , Rechtsanwältin,       Vienna,   Adviser . The Court heard addresses by Mr Türk, Mr Okresek and Mrs Gartner for the Government, by Mr Ermacora for the Commission and by Mr D’Amato for the applicant, as well as their replies to questions put by the Court and two judges. At the beginning of the hearing the Court granted a request made by the counsel for the applicant to hear a short address from him in camera (Rule 18). 9.    Numerous documents were filed by the Government and the applicant on dates between 14 June and 22 November 1989. On 23 November, in the light of the procedural directions given by the President at the hearing, the Chamber decided that the applicant’s written reply to the questions put by the Court and submissions concerning his claims for just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention could be taken into account, but not the other, unsolicited material lodged by the applicant and the Government subsequent to the hearing. AS TO THE FACTS I.    PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10.    The applicant is a citizen of the United States, now residing in Connecticut, United States of America. He entered Austria in the summer of 1979 and was arrested in Mödling (Lower Austria) on 4 October 1980 on suspicion of fraud and misappropriation under a warrant issued by the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht). On the same day he was taken to Vienna where, on 6 October 1980, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) remanded him in custody. On 15 October he was transferred from Vienna to the Innsbruck Regional Court Prison (Landesgerichtliches Gefangenenhaus). A. Pre-trial investigations 11.    The applicant was interrogated by police officers on 15 October, 6 November and 16 December 1980. During the questioning on 15 October interpretation was provided by a prisoner who, however, had only a limited knowledge of English. The person who interpreted on 6 November, whilst not a registered interpreter, was someone regularly asked to assist at police interviews when no registered interpreter was available. It cannot be established from the evidence adduced whether the person who provided interpretation on 16 December 1980 was a registered interpreter or not. In accordance with the usual practice the applicant received neither copies nor written translations of the records of these interrogations. 12.    Registered interpreters were present during the pre-trial interrogations by several investigating judges on 17 October, 27 October, 28 November and 1 December 1980. The procedure followed was that the investigating judge put a question or a series of questions in German to the applicant through the interpreter and the applicant replied in English through the interpreter. The judge then had the typist record a summary of the applicant’s answers which he considered relevant. The extent to which the recorded version was interpreted for the applicant at the end of the interrogation was disputed. On at least two occasions the applicant refused to sign the record on the ground that it was written in a language he could not understand. 13.    On the applicant’s motion granted by the competent court, an official legal aid defence counsel was appointed for him by the Tyrol Bar Association. This lawyer set out in writing the applicant’s objections to his detention on remand. However, the applicant wrote to the court on 31 October 1980 complaining that the lawyer did not speak English sufficiently well, and the lawyer asked to be relieved of his duties as counsel for the same reason. In view of this situation the remand review hearing of 19 November was adjourned at the applicant’s request. The Review Chamber (Ratskammer) instructed the investigating judge, inter alia, to take steps for the appointment of another lawyer with sufficient command of English. As a result Dr Wilhelm Steidl, a lawyer who is also a registered interpreter for the English language, was nominated legal aid defence counsel on 26 November. 14.    Dr Steidl visited the applicant for the first time on 3 December 1980 for at least fifteen minutes. On the same day he also appeared for the applicant at the adjourned remand review hearing before the Review Chamber. Immediately thereafter he lodged a complaint on the applicant’s behalf against the Review Chamber’s decision to prolong the detention on remand. Subsequent visits by Dr Steidl were made on 19 and 30 December 1980 and 21 January and 9 February 1981. 15.    On 16 February 1981 the indictment, a document of six pages, was served on the applicant at a session before the Innsbruck Regional Court. The applicant was charged with aggravated fraud (sections 146 and 147 § 3 of the Criminal Code) on seven counts and misappropriation (section 133 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code) on one count. The alleged offences consisted essentially of failure to pay certain bills, notably rent and telephone invoices. A registered interpreter was present, but the extent to which the indictment was interpreted is in dispute between the parties. The session lasted about an hour. The defence counsel did not appear and was eventually contacted by telephone, when he informed the applicant that he would not attend the session since this would serve no useful purpose and advised against raising any objection to the indictment. The minutes of this session record that the defendant was given notice of the indictment, that he asked for it also to be served upon his defence counsel, and that he entered an objection (Einspruch) to it. His grounds for the objection included the following. He had already written nine letters presenting the evidence sought. Despite his repeated requests he had never received any of the telephone invoices he was accused of not having paid. He had also demanded to be confronted with incriminatory evidence but had never obtained this evidence for review. With the assistance of the judge he formulated a general objection that the indictment was defective and accordingly requested its review. According to a note appended to the minutes, Mr Kamasinski refused to confirm by his signature that he had been given notice of the indictment for the reason that he did not as a matter of principle sign documents drafted in German. Neither on this occasion, nor later, was Mr Kamasinski provided with a written translation of the indictment. 16.    Upon return to his cell, the applicant wrote the following letter to his defence counsel: "As you know I received the indictment today. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me why you arranged to be telephoned instead of being present to give me advice? How in [deleted expletive] name can you advise me before ever seeing that which you are to advise about? The young doctor ?? told me I had to make up my mind instantly concerning whether or not to appeal. He typed something out and when I made a correction by inking out an obvious mistake, the ?? went [deleted expletives]. ‘You cannot alter what I write for you to sign, it is forbidden’. I told him to do the then appropriate thing with the paper and he ordered the interpreter ... to sign it.   ... I wish you to give me legal advice concerning the indictment: 1. Are there grounds for appeal? 2. What are the grounds available to appeal against an indictment? 3. Can I call witnesses on my behalf and compel them to attend the trial? 4. Will you assist me in a legal manner? It certainly appears as though you believe the decision on my guilt is pre-ordained otherwise you would not advise others that I will be found guilty without ever seeing the evidence, discussing it with me or ever seeing the indictment. Of course, you have advised me I would be freed on the same basis ..." 17.    Four days later, on 20 February 1981, Dr Steidl came to visit the applicant in prison and informed him that he would withdraw the objection to the indictment since it was bound to be rejected. This he did by a letter of the same day. Dr Steidl paid further pre-trial visits to the applicant on 16 March, 27 March and 1 April. The applicant was absent from his cell for one hour, thirty minutes and twenty minutes respectively. 18.    On 12 March 1981 the applicant wrote to Dr Steidl in the following terms: "... I shall be writing Dr Braunias [the judge presiding over the Chamber of the Regional Court competent to hear the case] asking him to please help me to obtain EFFECTIVE legal counsel, in the event I do not see the evidence and file prior to 19 March, which is only two weeks before the trial! ..." The applicant wrote another letter on 16 March instructing Dr Steidl to ensure the attendance at the trial of all witnesses against him and to summons two defence witnesses to appear. The same day Dr Steidl filed a written motion for the hearing of five witnesses, including Mrs Rebecca Wellington, together with a motion for some of them to be enjoined to bring certain documents. He later filed additions to this evidentiary motion by telephone. In particular, he asked on 31 March for Mrs Theresia Hackl to be summonsed to testify at the trial. 19.    On 16, 19, 23 (or 24) and 30 March 1981 the applicant sent letters to the presiding judge. In his letter of 16 March the applicant asked for trial in camera because of fears concerning his personal security. The contents of this letter were also explained over the telephone to the presiding judge by the prison legal officer, Dr P. In view of these fears a detective officer in plain clothes was eventually asked to attend the trial. The applicant’s letters of 19, 23 (or 24) and 30 March to the presiding judge, which were carried by hand from the Regional Court Prison to the Regional Court in the usual way, are now missing from the court file, and not indexed there. The Government are unable to give an explanation therefor. The contents of these letters were a source of dispute. The applicant asserted that their essentials were as summarised in subsequent letters he addressed to the presiding judge after the trial (see paragraph 23 below). According to the Government, on the other hand, as far as the presiding judge remembers the missing letters contained repetitions of matters already on the file. The presiding judge, so the Government stated, asked the applicant’s counsel to read the letters and to discuss their contents with his client; the judge invited counsel to raise the arguments made in the letters at the trial and to introduce motions accordingly. 20.    The applicant wrote in the following terms on 25 March 1981 to the prison legal officer, Dr P.: "Dr P., May I have an answer to my last note?? There is only 5 working days until the trial which is scheduled on the 2nd of April. I have not had an answer to any requests sent [to] Dr Braunias. Does he ignore me because I write only in English? Does he also ignore the Austrian law in the same way as the U-richter [investigating judge]? I have not yet seen the evidence irrespective of the fact I have an assigned lawyer. Having a lawyer that does nothing does not satisfy justice. You people must be crazy to think you can carry on a system of justice in such an oppressive manner. What do I have to do after six months to get the consideration I deserve? Must I hurt myself? Certainly you understand what is going on and you can easily telephone Dr Braunias and inquire. I will not write you or Dr Braunias again. If I do not have a satisfactory reply in accord with Austrian law and the European Human Rights Convention, Article 6 (art. 6) by the end of the day of March 26, Thursday, I shall take drastic steps! I have had enough of this charade." 21.    As confirmed by the prison records, a letter from the applicant to the public prosecutor was transmitted in the usual way on 30 March 1981. However, the prosecutor’s office has no note of ever receiving the letter. According to the applicant, in it he requested the prosecutor’s assistance in obtaining defence evidence and was critical of the services of Dr Steidl. 22.    On 1 April 1981, the day before the trial opened, the applicant was visited by two officers of the United States Embassy in Vienna. According to a memorandum subsequently drawn up by one of them for the files of the Embassy the applicant "complained that his public defender, Dr Steidl, had not discussed his defence with him yet and that he had had no chance to review the court file himself. (Dr Steidl had told me over the phone several days ago that he had spent a total of three hours discussing the defence with Mr K. and that he would see him again shortly before the trial)". 23.    After the trial the applicant wrote a number of letters to the presiding judge. In one, dated 4 May 1981, he said: "Please note that on the 19th of March last, I wrote you requesting access to the records and informing you that Dr Steidl had not yet prepared me nor studied the records of the Court. I requested you to discharge Dr Steidl if his assignment was the basis to refuse me access to the records. On the 30th of March, I wrote you again to inform you that Dr Steidl had not prepared me for the trial nor provided or translated all the relevant witness statements. You ignored both letters and further did not answer a letter requesting permission to present certain documents in English. I realise surely that it was the duty for Dr Steidl to take up these matters with you but he refused to do anything." In a subsequent letter dated 18 May he summarised the contents of his letters of 16, 19 and 30 March and complained about not having received any response. This letter, together with a German translation prepared by the prison legal officer, was forwarded to the presiding judge on 26 May. There, the applicant stated the "important elements" of his previous letters as follows: "... 2. On the 19th of March, I wrote you a letter to request an inspection of the court records (Akteneinsicht) and informed you therein that I had little knowledge of any of the alleged evidence, documentary or testimonial. I specifically asked you to discharge Dr Steidl if his representation of me was to be a basis of denying me direct access to the evidence. I stated that it was more important for me to know of the basis of the allegations (so as to prepare a defence) than to be represented by a lawyer. I presume that you did not give me access to the evidence requested nor did you discharge Dr Steidl because you did not understand my letter. (To this date, I do not have knowledge of the majority of the evidence). 3. On the 19th of March I also requested permission to present documentary evidence in English, which request I presume was never answered because it was not understood. 4. On the 30th of March I wrote to inform you that my appointed lawyer, Dr Steidl, had still not prepared me for the trial on the 2nd of April nor given me access [to] or knowledge of the prosecution evidence. (The situation remained the same as reported in my letter of the 19th of March except that at 4:15 in the afternoon of April 1st, Dr Steidl came to inform me that no further preparation was necessary since ‘nothing’ would happen to me on April 2nd).   ..." B. The trial 24.    The trial before the Innsbruck Regional Court, sitting as a court with lay assessors (Schöffengericht), took place on 2 April 1981. It was attended by two officers of the United States Embassy in Vienna as observers but apparently by no members of the public. The Court was composed of two professional judges and two lay assessors. It is the applicant’s contention, as corroborated by the United States consular observers, that the indictment read out at the beginning of the trial was not interpreted into English. However, according to the consular observers, the applicant, when asked, said that he understood the charges and he and his counsel waived interpretation of the indictment. After the indictment was read out, Mr Kamasinski was invited to make a statement and was questioned by the presiding judge pursuant to section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) (see paragraph 49 below). The record shows that he stated, among other things, that he was not guilty of any criminal charge. 25.    About halfway through the trial, there was apparently a dispute between the applicant and his defence counsel as to whether requests should be made for the hearing of further witnesses including a lawyer, Dr E., who had been acting as the applicant’s business agent responsible for settling his debts and whom the applicant suspected of double-representation. Dr Steidl, considering this suspicion as an attack against the reputation of Austrian lawyers in general, thereupon asked the court to be discharged from his functions as the applicant’s defence counsel. However, the court rejected this request. Dr Steidl accordingly continued to represent the applicant until the end of the trial. There is no mention in the record of Mr Kamasinski’s having asked for replacement of his legal aid defence counsel. In his concluding address to the court Dr Steidl asked for a "lenient judgment" ("mildes Urteil") for Mr Kamasinski. 26.    Mrs Rebecca Wellington and Mrs Theresia Hackl, two prosecution witnesses summonsed to attend at the request of the defence (see paragraph 18 above), did not appear at the trial. With the consent of the defence and the prosecution, the pre-trial deposition of Mrs Hackl was read out to the court pursuant to section 252 § 1.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had not been provided with an English translation of this deposition. The applicant himself furnished evidence as to the payment of his debts to Mrs Wellington. A third witness, Mrs Hedda Bruck, did not appear because she had not been called by either the prosecution or the defence. Evidence on matters to which she could have spoken was taken from other witnesses who did testify. The court refused a motion by both the prosecution and the defence to institute investigations into Mr Kamasinski’s bank account in New York, as well as a motion, eventually submitted by defence counsel on Mr Kamasinski’s insistence, for the lawyer, Dr E., to be called. 27.    A registered interpreter was present, sitting next to the applicant’s defence counsel to the left of the judges’ bench, while the applicant was sitting at a distance of about 6 to 7 metres from his defence counsel facing the bench. The record of the trial states that an interpreter attended but, in accordance with the usual practice, does not specify which of the statements made during the trial were interpreted or the extent to which this was done. It is uncontested that questions put to prosecution witnesses by the court and the public prosecutor were not interpreted, whereas the extent to which witnesses’ answers and other statements were interpreted is a subject of dispute. In accordance with the usual practice the interpretation provided was not simultaneous but consecutive and summarising. According to the record of the trial, no formal objection was raised by the defence at the time with respect to the extent of the interpretation provided. 28.   The minutes, which are fifteen pages long, record the applicant’s opening declaration as to the various charges, the testimony of seven persons heard as witnesses, the motion made by the prosecution and the defence to institute investigations into the applicant’s bank account in New York, the motion made by the defence to hear three more witnesses and to inquire through Interpol whether the applicant had previously been convicted in America, the United Kingdom and Belgium. According to the record a number of documents were read out, including the pre-trial deposition of Mrs Hackl. Finally, the minutes record the final submissions by the prosecution and the defence, the court’s decision to refuse to take further evidence and the declaration made by the prosecution reserving its right to lodge a plea of nullity in respect of that decision. They conclude by stating that the court gave judgment, together with its reasons, and indicated possible means of appeal. The last sentence reads: "The parties made no comment." 29.    Mr Kamasinski was found guilty of aggravated fraud and misappropriation and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment, inter alia on charges involving debts owed to Mrs Hackl, Mrs Wellington and Mrs Bruck. After recounting the facts found, the judgment records the defendant’s declaration that he was not guilty of any criminal offence. According to the judgment, he essentially admitted having incurred the debts for rent and telephone covered by the first seven counts in the indictment but asserted that he had been willing and able to pay these debts. The court held that this defence was contradicted by the evidence before it. With regard to Mrs Wellington the court referred to the fact that the evidence adduced by the applicant himself showed that he had only partly settled his debt to her. He was also ordered to pay ATS 80,890 to two private parties (Privatbeteiligte) who had appeared as witnesses for the prosecution and who had claimed compensation (section 47 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The applicant and the consular observers are agreed that only the verdict and the sentence, but not the reasons, were interpreted into English. The Government, on the other hand, concur with the finding of the Supreme Court (see paragraph 37 below) that the judgment, including the reasons, was orally translated in all essential parts. The written judgment was served upon the defence counsel, Dr Steidl, on 19 May 1981. The following day, Dr Steidl visited the applicant in prison, but declined to translate the whole text of the judgment for him. The applicant received a copy thereof (in German) on 27 May but was not provided with a written translation. 30.    On various dates between October 1980 and February 1981, Mr Kamasinski was served with invoices in respect of interpretation charges incurred during the course of the pre-trial investigation. However, following the intervention of the United States Embassy, the Austrian authorities eventually confirmed in September 1981 that he was not liable for interpretation costs. C. The appeal and nullity proceedings 31.    Subsequent to the trial, on 6 April 1981, the applicant wrote a letter to the prison legal officer asking him to convey to the presiding judge his request to have a new defence counsel appointed, as he did "not get along with Dr Steidl", and also asking for advice what to do in order to obtain a new lawyer. This letter was forwarded to the competent department of the Regional Court on 7 April where it was received the next day. The applicant also wrote to Dr Steidl informing him that he had asked for the appointment of another defence counsel. On 5 May he wrote in similar terms to the President of the Tyrol Bar Association. 32.    In addition he sent a number of letters to the presiding judge (dated 6 and 21 April and 4 and 18 May 1981). In the letter of 21 April he said: "It is now almost three weeks since your judgment and I have not a copy nor has it been translated to me which is required by Austrian law and international law as I understand it. It would be proper for me to know what I have been tentatively convicted of so that I may write to the States and obtain the evidence (which Dr Steidl did not do) for the appeal to Vienna. Therefore, may I please have a copy of the judgment (Urteil) or in the alternative a translation of the Urteil. For six months I have been prevented from defending myself through the assignment of an attorney who did absolutely nothing to help me, but actually participated against me in the prosecution." The letter of 4 May included the following: "It is now one month since I appeared before your Court and you pronounced judgment (Urteil) and I still do not know what you said or the legal basis. The translator (Dolmetscher) only stated that I was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in prison. I have no knowledge beyond that and clearly I do not expect Dr Steidl to do more than he has in the past; absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, I am being additionally punished due to my lack of understanding of the German language. The appointment of Dr Steidl to defend me has been consistently utilised as the ‘legal’ basis to deny me rights available to any Austrian or to me if I understood German. One month is more than adequate time for me to be informed of what you said in Court or pronounced in the written ‘Urteil’. I have advised you that I wish to appeal the ‘Urteil’ with a ‘Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde’ [plea of nullity] to the Supreme Court of Austria in accord with applicable laws. One of the grounds of the ‘Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde’ is that I was deprived of effective assistance of a defender in that Dr Steidl did absolutely nothing to prepare me for the trial and refused to obtain any evidence on my behalf. On the basis that Dr Steidl has failed to perform his explicit obligation to defend me correctly and that such is a ground of the appeal, it is therefore impossible for Dr Steidl to represent me in the prosecution of the ‘Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde’. On this account, I have written to Dr Ernst Mayr, President of the Rechtsanwaltskammer [Bar Association], to request appointment of an English-speaking lawyer. [Passage reproduced in paragraph 23 above.] Because I am in the difficult position of not being effectively represented and not understanding the language, I can only attempt to do what I feel is correct legally and ethically. I am hereby informing you of the grounds for the appeal, which grounds are substantial, and which grounds should be properly presented by an experienced Austrian Attorney. (To date, I have not been visited by an Attorney for the purpose of preparing a ‘Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde’.) If I am not presenting the grounds correctly, it is only due to lack of legal advice." The letter of 18 May (passages of which are set out at paragraph 23 above) was accompanied by a translation into German. In it the applicant reiterated that "on the 4th of May I wrote to you to inform you of some of the grounds of the Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde as well as the grounds for appointment of a new lawyer". As before, the applicant received no response from the presiding judge. 33.    On 20 May 1981 the applicant was once more visited in prison by Dr Steidl. At the applicant’s request this meeting was attended by the prison legal officer. The applicant repeated his request to have another defence counsel appointed. By letter of 21 May 1981 Dr Steidl asked the Tyrol Bar Association to be discharged of his duties as defence counsel. On 22 May the Bar Association appointed Dr Schwank as new defence counsel for the applicant. Dr Schwank was notified thereof on 26 May. 34.    On 29 May 1981 a partner of Dr Steidl came to see Dr Schwank in his office and gave him a draft appeal (Berufung) and plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) prepared by Dr Steidl (consisting of three pages) and also some copies from the court file. On 1 June Dr Schwank visited the applicant in prison. The statement setting out the plea of nullity and the appeal (against sentence and the compensation order) was then drawn up and filed on 2 June, the day on which the time-limit for filing expired. Dr Schwank also prepared a translation of the judgment for the applicant. 35.    The plea of nullity was essentially based on the following grounds: (a) (under section 281 § 1.1a of the Code of Criminal Procedure - see paragraph 51 below) that the applicant was not adequately represented by counsel during the proceedings and in particular during the trial; (b) (under section 281 § 1.3, taken together with sections 244, 250 and 252, of the Code - ibid.) that the interpretation during the trial was insufficient, and in particular that neither the indictment nor the written depositions nor the oral testimony of certain witnesses nor the questions put to witnesses by the presiding judge and the public prosecutor were interpreted into English; (c) (under section 281 § 1.3, taken together with section 260, of the Code - ibid.) that save for its operative part the judgment was neither interpreted on the spot nor translated thereafter; (d) (under section 281 § 1.4 of the Code - ibid.) that the trial court had not granted either the prosecution or the defence motions to have investigations carried out with the defendant’s bankers or the defence motions for the hearing of evidence from two witnesses; (e) (under section 281 § 1.5 - ibid.) that the judgment was not sufficiently reasoned; (f) (under section 281 § 1.9a and b - ibid.) that the trial court had incorrectly interpreted certain facts which established lack of fraudulent intent. 36.    With regard to the factual allegations concerning the scope of interpretation during the trial, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) conducted an inquiry in accordance with section 285f of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 52 below). The presiding judge of the Innsbruck Regional Court was questioned by the reporting judge of the Supreme Court over the telephone. A note on this conversation, which was placed in the Supreme Court’s file on 31 August 1981, reads as follows (translation into English provided by the Government): "The presiding judge, Regional Court Justice Dr Braunias, replied as follows to an inquiry by telephone: Contrary to the allegations made in the plea of nullity, all essential points of the indictment, of the witnesses’ depositions, of the contents of the documents read out in court as well as of the judgment, including its reasoning, were translated by the interpreter who had been summoned and by counsel for the defence, Barrister Dr Steidl (who is a qualified English interpreter), at the trial which was attended by two members of the United States Embassy. The defendant was also permitted to comment on the charges and on each piece of evidence without any time-limit, as well as to put questions to the witnesses." Neither the applicant nor his counsel was given notice of this inquiry or advised of its results. 37.    On 1 September 1981, after having obtained the view of the Procurator General (Generalprokurator), the Supreme Court, sitting in chambers (see paragraph 52 below), rejected the plea of nullity, essentially on the following grounds. As to the complaint that the applicant had not been adequately represented by counsel during the trial, the Supreme Court found that the Regional Court was only under a duty to appoint a defence counsel and to invite him to attend the trial as well as any other proceedings in which the defendant was allowed to participate. It was not, however, for the Regional Court to supervise the activities of the defence counsel, who was not subject to the control of the Court but to the disciplinary authority of the appropriate bar association. Accordingly, no ground for nullity could be derived from any insufficient performance by the defence counsel of his duties. With respect to the interpretation during the trial, the Supreme Court observed that the Regional Court had not only appointed an interpreter to assist during the trial but that it had also appointed, at the applicant’s request, a defence counsel who was at the same time an English interpreter and with whom the applicant could communicate in his mother tongue. As a matter of law, neither an incomplete translation nor a failure to appoint an interpreter as such constituted a ground for nullity. They could at best be a source of challenge, under section 281 § 1.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 51 below), if a corresponding motion had been denied at the trial. Besides (im übrigen), the inquiry carried out by the Supreme Court pursuant to section 285f of the Code of Criminal Procedure had shown that, contrary to the allegations in the applicant’s plea of nullity, all essential parts of the indictment, of the testimony of witnesses, of the documents read out during the trial and also of the judgment, including its reasons, had been interpreted by the registered interpreter. Furthermore, the applicant had had the opportunity to comment on the charges and the evidence without any time restriction and also to put questions to witnesses. 38.    The date of the public hearing for the appeal against sentence and the compensation order was notified to Mr Kamasinski pursuant to section 286 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his counsel, Dr Schwank, was summoned to attend. On 11 November 1981 Mr Kamasinski lodged an application for his personal attendance before the Supreme Court, arguing, inter alia, that the determination of the sentence necessitated an assessment of his personality and that this required his presence. Moreover, the file before the Supreme Court included articles from the daily newspaper "Kurier" which were prejudicial to him and might adversely influence the Supreme Court. The articles, which had been published on 14, 15 and 16 November 1980 and which described him as an American espionage agent dangerous to the Republic of Austria, had also been in the file of the trial court. Lastly, he submitted, as his appeal concerned also the civil-law aspects of the judgment, it would be unfair if the private parties to whom he had to pay compensation could appear before the Supreme Court but not himself. This application was rejected by decision of the Supreme Court on 20 November 1981 on the ground that no concrete indications suggesting a need for the accused’s personal attendance at the hearing on the appeal lodged solely for his benefit were apparent from the court files or from his application. If he harboured the belief that his personal presence would enable him to argue that the criminal proceedings had come about essentially as a result of a chain of unfortunate circumstances and misunderstandings, above all of a linguistic nature, he was unaware of the rule that the question of guilt can no longer be canvassed in the appeal proceedings. Moreover, all further circumstances set forth in his application could be put forward by his lawyer at the hearing. The Supreme Court’s ruling was served on Mr Kamasinski’s counsel. 39.    The grounds for appeal against sentence were essentially that the trial court had failed to take into account a number of mitigating considerations, such as Mr Kamasinski’s lack of criminal record, his maintenance obligations to his wife and child, his error in not realising the criminal character of his conduct and the fact that the monetary qualifying limit for aggravated fraud (ATS 100,000) had been exceeded by only a small amount. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24 November 1981 after a hearing at which the applicant was represented by defence counsel. The Supreme Court considered that the sentence imposed by the Regional Court was adequate and that the relative weight of mitigating and aggravating circumstances had been correctly assessed. The adjudication of compensation to two private parties had been in accordance with the law and therefore there was no reason to refer the decision on this issue to the civil courts as requested by the applicant. The Supreme Court’s judgment also lists those present at the appeal hearing and there is no indication that the private parties whose compensation claims the Regional Court had upheld were present or represented at that hearing. 40.    The applicant was released from prison on 16 December 1981 and subsequently detained with a view to his deportation to the United States of America. He was eventually deported in January 1982. II.    RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A. Interpretation 41.    Section 100 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: "The investigating judge shall have translated by a registered interpreter any documents drawn up in a language other than the one used in court (nicht gerichtsüblich) if they are relevant to the investigation and have them put in the file together with the translation." Under the terms of section 163 of the Code: "Where a witness does not have knowledge of the language used in court (Gerichtssprache), an interpreter shall be called in unless both the investigating judge and the court clerk have a command of the foreign language. In the official record of the hearing or an annex thereto the depositions of the witness shall be recorded in that language only where it is necessary to quote the actual expressions used by the person examined (section 104 § 3)." According to section 104 § 3, such a necessity exists if the expressions used are important for judging the matter or if it is to be expected that the official record will be read out at the trial. By virtue of section 198 § 3 of the Code, section 163 also governs, mutatis mutandis, interrogations of a person charged with an offence (Beschuldigter) if that person does not have knowledge of the language used in court. 42.    It follows from the context of the above provisions tha