CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 1 mars 1991

.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   Istvan HERCZEGFALVY against   AUSTRIA   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 1 March 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 23) ......................................    1           A.       The application                 (paras. 2 - 4)   ..............................    1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5 - 18) ..............................    2           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 19 - 23) .............................    3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras.   24 - 159) ...................................    5           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 24 - 129) ............................    5                   1.   Criminal proceedings against the                    applicant in 1973 and 1974                    (paras. 24 - 27) ..........................    5                 2.   The guardianship proceedings                    (paras. 28 - 32) ..........................    5                 3.   Further criminal proceedings against                    the applicant and his detention on                    remand in this connection                    (paras. 33 - 63) ..........................    6                 4.   The applicant's detention under                    Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal Code                    and its judicial review                    (paras. 64 - 71) ..........................   11                 5.   Medical treatment                    (paras. 72 - 117) .........................   13                 6.   Control of correspondence                    (paras. 118 - 124) ........................   20                 7.   Restriction of access to information                    (paras. 125 - 129) ........................   21           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 130 - 159) ............................ 22                   1.   Deprivation of liberty                    (paras. 130 - 140) ........................   22                 2.   Conditions of detention                    (paras. 141 - 152) ........................   25                 3.   Provisions on legal incapacitation and                    the functions of the guardian                    (paras. 153 - 158) ........................   30                 4.   Complaints to the Administrative Court                    and the Constitutional Court                    (para. 159) ...............................   32   TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)                                                                  Page III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 160 - 290)   ................................... 33           A.       Complaints declared admissible                 (para. 160) ................................... 33           B.       Points at issue                 (para. 161) ................................... 33           C.       Deprivation of liberty                 (paras. 162 - 240) ............................ 34                   1.   Justification of the applicant's detention                    under Article 5 para. 1                    (paras. 164 - 218) ......................... 35                 2.   Length of detention on remand                    (Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention)                    (paras. 219 - 229) ......................... 44                 3.   Review of the lawfulness of the applicant's                    continued detention                    (Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention)                    (paras. 230 - 240) ......................... 45           D.       Conditions of detention                 (paras. 241 - 279) ............................ 47                   1.   Compulsory medical treatment, artificial                    feeding and isolation                    (Article 3 of the Convention)                    (paras. 241 - 255) ......................... 47                 2.   Alleged interference with the right                    to respect for private life                    (Article 8 of the Convention)                    (paras. 256 - 260) ......................... 51                 3.   Correspondence                    (Article 8 of the Convention)                    (paras. 261 - 274) ......................... 52                 4.   Access to information                    (Article 10 of the Convention)                    (paras. 275 - 279) ......................... 54           E.       Effective remedies                 (Article 13 of the Convention)                 (paras. 280 - 289) ............................ 55           F.       Recapitulation                 (para. 290) ................................... 56   APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................. 58   APPENDIX II      :   PARTIAL DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY .......... 60                    (10 March 1988)   APPENDIX III     :   FINAL DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY ............ 79                    (4 October 1989)   I.     INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The applicant is a Hungarian refugee born in 1944, who came to Austria in 1964.   He now lives in Vienna.   From 30 January 1989 until 5 June 1990 he was represented by Mr.   Heinrich Vana, a lawyer practising in Vienna, and as from 8 June 1990 by Mr.   Holger Hoffmann, a lawyer practising in Bremen (Federal Republic of Germany).   3.       The application is directed against Austria.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Helmut Türk, Head of the International Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.       The case concerns the applicant's detention in the period between 27 May 1978, six months before the introduction of the present application, and 28 November 1984, the date of the applicant's release from detention.   The applicant complains   a)       that his detention from 27 May 1978 until 9 April 1980 was         not justified under Article 5 para. 1 (c) and/or (e) of the         Convention and that, contrary to Article 5 para. 3 of the         Convention, he was not brought to trial within a reasonable         time;   b)       that his detention as a person of unsound mind from         9 April 1980 until his release on 28 November 1984 was         not justified under Article 5 para. 1 (e);   c)       that after 9 April 1980 he was not able to obtain judicial         review of the continued lawfulness of this detention in         conformity with Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention;   d)       that the conditions of his detention, including his         medical treatment, amounted to inhuman or degrading         treatment contrary to Article 3 or to an unjustified         interference with his right to respect for his private         life under Article 8 of the Convention;   e)       that there have been violations of his right to         respect for his correspondence (Article 8) and         his right to receive information (Article 10 of the         Convention); and   f)       that there was no effective remedy to challenge the violations         under d) and e) above (Article 13 of the Convention).     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 27 November 1978 and registered on 22 August 1983.   6.       On 14 October 1983 a member of the Commission, acting as Rapporteur, requested information from the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure (former version), concerning restrictions of the applicant's correspondence with the Commission and withholding of relevant documents.   7.       The Government replied on 13 December 1983 that the applicant was free to correspond with the Commission, subject to supervision, and that necessary documents would be handed out to him upon his request.   In his replies of 31 December 1984 and 21 April 1984 the applicant complained of continuing restrictions preventing him from submitting documents to the Commission.   8.       On 21 May 1984 the Commission's Rapporteur requested the respondent Government to submit a full documentation of the case.   9.       On 11 July 1984 the Government submitted voluminous documents on which the applicant commented on 26 July and 25 October 1984.   10.      By a partial decision of 10 March 1988 the Commission rejected certain complaints (cf.   Appendix II).   At the same time it communicated a number of other complaints to the respondent Government, inviting them, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure (former version), to submit observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.   11.      The time-limit fixed for this purpose was extended until 1 August 1988 and the Government's observations were submitted on 29 July 1988.   12.      The applicant was invited to reply before 20 September 1988, but this time-limit was suspended in view of his request for legal aid which was granted by the Commission's President on 9 January 1989. A new time-limit was fixed for the submission of the applicant's observations by his legal aid lawyer, which was extended upon the latter's request until 31 May 1989.   The applicant's observations were submitted on that date.   13.      On 4 October 1989, the Commission declared the complaints outlined in para. 4 above admissible.   It rejected the remainder of the application and decided to take no further action in respect of the complaint concerning effective exercise of the right of petition (Article 25 para. 1 in fine).   14.      The parties were invited to submit observations on the merits before 15 December 1989.   On that date the applicant's legal aid lawyer informed the Commission that he did not consider it necessary to submit such observations, but that he reserved the right to comment   on the Government's observations.   The Government requested an extension of the time-limit which the President granted until 1 February 1990.   15.      On 10 February 1990 the Commission suspended the above time-limit in view of efforts for securing a friendly settlement (cf. para. 18 below).   On 21 May 1990 the President fixed 15 June 1990 as the new time-limit for the observations of both parties.   16.      The Government submitted their observations on the merits on that date.   The applicant requested an extension due to the change in his representation (cf. para. 2 above).   17.      On 7 July 1990 the Commission fixed 3 September 1990 as the time-limit for the applicant's observations.   These were submitted by the applicant's new lawyer on 3 September 1990 and supplemented on 11 October 1990.   18.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   Negotiations were conducted with the parties between February and May 1990.   In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.     C.       The present Report   19.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ     20.      The text of this Report was adopted on 1 March 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   21.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   (1)      to establish the facts, and   (2)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a         breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the         Convention.   22.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the application as Appendices II and III.   23.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, is held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       The particular circumstances of the case           1.   Criminal proceedings against the applicant in 1973 and 1974   24.      The applicant came to Austria in 1964.   He married an Austrian woman and established himself as a self-employed businessman, running a TV repair shop in Vienna.   25.      Criminal proceedings were instituted against him in 1972.   In connection with these proceedings he was arrested on 13 May 1972.   He remained in detention until 28 November 1984.   26.      On 9 November 1972, the Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) of Vienna convicted the applicant of several criminal offences including 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. An application concerning his conviction (No. 6398/73) was declared inadmissible by the Commission on 12 December 1974.   27.      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 involving physical aggression). It imposed a prison sentence of five and a half years which was reduced to three years by the Supreme Court on 12 December 1973.   The applicant served this sentence after the first one, until 13 May 1977.           2.   The guardianship proceedings   28.      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.   29.      Because of this 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.   30.      In the reasons, the Court stated inter alia that anyone who considered his rights to have been infringed was entitled to bring his complaint before a statutory authority.   The exercise of this right was kept within set limits by the appointment of a legal guardian. In his own interests and those of his environment and of the authorities, the applicant was restrained from pursuing what he believed to be his rights, but the necessary pursuit of his rights   was not impaired by his deprivation of legal capacity.   Since the applicant - apart from matters concerning legal action - was able to perform for himself the normal acts of everyday life, a partial deprivation of legal capacity under the protection of a legal guardian was found sufficient.   31.      This decision was confirmed by the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) on 3 November 1977 and according to the Government became final on 7 February 1978.   The applicant denies that there is a valid final decision.   32.      By a decision of the District Court of Vienna-City of 9 August 1983 the guardian was replaced by another guardian who continues to exercise his functions to the present day.   On 19 July 1984 the guardianship court ruled by virtue of Article X para. 3 sub-para. 1 of the Federal Act concerning Guardianship for Handicapped Persons (cf. para. 156 below) that as from 1 July 1984 the applicant had an equivalent position to a person for whom a curator (Sachwalter) had been appointed to take care of all matters under Section 273 para. 3 sub-para. 3 of the Civil Code (cf. para. 157 below).           3.   Further criminal proceedings against the applicant and            his detention on remand in this connection           a)   Preliminary investigation and first court hearing;             order for the applicant's detention on remand             -------------------------------------------------- 33.      While the applicant was serving the sentence resulting from his conviction on 2 February 1973, new criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of his having committed further criminal offences during his detention (assaults on prison officers and fellow prisoners, uttering dangerous threats in letters addressed to the presiding judge of the first trial).   34.      According to the Government the indictment in the new criminal case "presumably" dated from 2 June 1976.   On 29 October 1976 an official defence counsel was appointed for the applicant, and the counsel was replaced several times.   In November 1976 the applicant was granted access to the file, from which a considerable number of documents disappeared.   35.      On 24 November 1976 the public prosecutor requested the inclusion of additional offences (attacks against prison officers) in the proceedings.   36.      The trial, which had been fixed for 14 and 17 December 1976, apparently was not held.   On 14 December, the whole file had disappeared and therefore it had to be reconstituted.   37.      On 5 April 1977 the new trial date was fixed for 3 May 1977. A court hearing was held on that date, but adjourned in view of the applicant's request to hear numerous witnesses whose whereabouts had to be established.   The case therefore was still pending on 13 May 1977 when the applicant completed his above sentence.   38.      Three days earlier, on 10 May 1977, the Court ordered that following the completion of the sentence the applicant should remain in detention, being remanded in custody in connection with the new case.   The detention order in question made under Section 180 para. 2 sub-paras. (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Straf- prozessordnung) was based on the suspicion that the applicant had committed criminal offences and the fear that he might abscond and carry out his threat to commit further offences.   The applicant was transferred on 12 May 1977 to the prison of the Regional Court of Vienna.   His complaints against his continued detention were rejected by the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Court on 18 May 1977 and the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 21 June 1977.   39.      On 27 June 1977 the Court appointed an expert of forensic medicine to examine the injuries of a prison officer suffered at an altercation with the applicant on 24 August 1975, which formed the background of one of the charges.   That officer had no longer exercised his functions after the incident, had complained of permanent headaches, and had been retired in September 1976.   The expert opinion was submitted on 3 August 1977 and supplemented by a report of 20 July 1977 on X-ray examinations of the prison officer concerned.           b)   Second court hearing and order for provisional             detention in an institution for mentally             deranged offenders             ---------------------------------------------- 40.      On 14 September 1977 the applicant was summoned to a court hearing to be held on 25 October 1977, which subsequently had to be postponed due to the absence of the presiding judge.   The hearing was held on 2 November 1977 but adjourned for the purpose of taking further evidence.   The Court also decided to maintain the applicant's detention on remand.   41.      On 9 January 1978 the presiding judge decided that the applicant's detention on remand should henceforth be carried out as provisional detention (vorläufige Unterbringung) in an institution for mentally deranged offenders (Anstalt für geistig abnorme Rechtsbrecher) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cf. para. 136 below). This decision was based on the advice of several experts.   It was confirmed by the Review Chamber of the Regional Court of Vienna on 6 March 1978, and by the Vienna Court of Appeal on 19 April 1978. The applicant was accordingly transferred to the special prison for mentally deranged offenders of Vienna-Mittersteig.           c)   Third court hearing and new indictment             -------------------------------------- 42.      A court hearing planned for 6 and 10 March 1978 could not take place because the clerk of the court had erroneously failed to send out the summonses.   43.      On 5 April 1978 a hearing took place which was interrupted because the presiding judge declared himself disqualified after the applicant had spat him in the face.   On 7 April 1978 the file was transmitted to a new presiding judge.   44.      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 not responsible for his acts.   His criminal offences therefore had to be seen in a different light.   His presence at the trial could be harmful to his health.   In a supplementary report, a psychological expert also confirmed that the applicant was incapable of realising the unlawfulness of his behaviour and to act accordingly.   He suffered from a serious mental disturbance and had a massive potential of aggression.   45.      In view of these expert opinions, the prosecution on 15 June 1978 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) (cf. para. 137 below).   It also applied for the trial to be held in the absence of the applicant, pursuant to Section 430 para. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From this time, the applicant's provisional detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders was based on Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cf. para. 136 below).   46.      The applicant's objections against the new indictment were rejected by the Court of Appeal on 30 August 1978.           d)   Fourth court hearing and judgment             --------------------------------- 47.      On 10 October 1978 the applicant was informed by the presiding judge that the question of his exclusion from the trial would be decided by the full Court.   48.      On 8 November 1978 the court hearing was fixed for 9 and 10 January 1979.   The applicant's requests to postpone these hearings, to enable him to prepare his defence sufficiently, were rejected.   He was initially present at the trial, but then excluded according to Section 430 para. 5 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings.   His request to be released from detention on remand was rejected on the grounds that his continued detention was required under Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   49.      By its judgment of 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 officer).   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.   50.      As to 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.           e)   Continued detention on remand pending the nullity             proceedings before the Supreme Court             ------------------------------------------------- 51.      Pending the applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeits- beschwerde) against this judgment, he continued to be detained on remand in the form of provisional detention according to Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   However, according to the recommendation of a psychiatric expert, this provisional detention was now carried out in the prison of the Vienna Regional Court and no longer in the special prison of Mittersteig.   52.      On 28 June 1979 the Regional Court ordered the immediate transfer of the applicant to the psychiatric hospital of Vienna because he needed urgent treatment which could not be administered to him in the Regional Court's prison hospital, as confirmed by that hospital's psychiatric consultant.   The applicant remained in the psychiatric hospital from 29 June to 23 July 1979 (cf. para. 75 below) when he returned to the Regional Court's prison.   53.      On 29 August 1979 the applicant's appeal against the Regional Court's decision was rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Appeal. It observed that the Regional Court had wrongly referred to Section 50 of the Hospitals Act (Krankenanstaltengesetz) instead of Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   Therefore the Review Chamber of the Regional Court was competent to decide on the applicant's appeal.   54.      On 5 September 1979 the Review Chamber confirmed the applicant's continued detention.   It ordered that it should henceforth be carried out in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna as provisional detention under Section 429 para. 4, because due to a hunger-strike which the applicant pursued since 2 August 1979 he needed urgent treatment which could not be administered to him in the prison hospital.   He should receive intensive medical, socio- and psychotherapeutic treatment.   On the basis of this decision the applicant was transferred to Ward 23 of the psychiatric hospital of Vienna on 10 September 1979. He remained there until his release on 28 November 1984.   55.      On 8 October 1979 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal against the Regional Court's decision of 5 September 1979, finding that it was obvious in view of the applicant's behaviour during his detention on remand and at the trial that he could not be released without danger to himself and others; there was a clear danger of recidivism.           f)   Continued detention on remand following             the Supreme Court's decision             --------------------------------------- 56.      On 3 October 1979 the Supreme Court in part allowed the applicant's plea of nullity against the Regional Court's judgment of 10 January 1979 (cf. paras. 49 - 50 above).   It 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 Supreme Court also quashed the order for the applicant's committal to an institution for mentally deranged offenders and referred the case back to the Regional Court for a new trial.   57.      On 14 December 1979 the investigating judge of the Regional Court informed the applicant that he continued to be detained under Section 429 para. 4.   In view of the applicant's request for release of 4 December 1979 the investigating judge further addressed a note to the Governor of the Regional Court's prison requesting him to submit comments by the prison's medical service, in consultation with the psychiatric hospital, on whether the applicant's continued detention under Section 429 para. 4 was necessary.   58.      In reply, the psychiatric hospital on 17 January 1980 submitted a report according to which aggressive and dangerous acts of the applicant were still to be feared.   It referred to the incident of 15 January 1980 (paras. 88 - 89 below) and expressed the view that the applicant's return to normal detention on remand was inconceivable.   59.      On 28 January 1980, the Review Chamber confirmed the applicant's continued detention under Section 429 para. 4.   The applicant's complaint against this decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal at a date not indicated to the Commission.           g)   New trial and judgment             ---------------------- 60.      Prior to his new trial before the Regional Court on 20 March 1980, the presiding judge made enquiries concerning the applicant's fitness to appear for trial.   The institute for forensic medicine declined to deliver an opinion on this question, stating that the doctors treating the applicant should do so.   The director of the psychiatric hospital confirmed the applicant's physical fitness to be tried, provided that he was allowed to sit.   61.      The 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 (cf. para. 56 above), and a new charge of dangerous threats uttered against a judge in a letter of 24 December 1979.   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 (cf. paras. 49-50 above).   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.   62.      This judgment became final on 6 November 1980 as the applicant withdrew his plea of nullity and appeal.   The applicant did so in writing on 30 October 1980 and confirmed the withdrawal orally at a hearing on 6 November 1980.   By a file note (Endverfügung) of the same date the judgment was declared to be final (rechtskräftig) and 1 October 1981 was determined as the date for the next annual judicial review of the detention according to Section 25 para. 3 of the Penal Code (cf. para. 138 below).   63.       The applicant has subsequently contested that he validly waived his right to appeal.   He claims that he only declared it in view of his intended transfer to Hungary which was also discussed at the hearing on 6 November 1980.   However, the efforts to secure such a transfer eventually failed.   After preparatory steps by the public prosecutor's office, the Federal Ministry of Justice on 6 March 1981 informed the Court that the Hungarian authorities had not yet reacted. Subsequently, it informed the Court that the Hungarian authorities had only consented to allow the applicant's entry.   Finally, by a note of 4 January 1983, the Ministry informed the Court that by a letter of 20 December 1982 the Hungarian authorities had refused to enforce the Austrian court's judgment on their territory.           4.   The applicant's detention under Section 21 para. 1             of the Penal Code and its judicial review           a)   First review period             ------------------- 64.      After the Regional Court's judgment had become final on 6 November 1980 (cf. para. 62 above), the applicant continued to be detained in the psychiatrical hospital of the city of Vienna, in the same closed department (Ward 23) in which he had earlier been.   65.      On 3 December 1981 an officer of the closed department reminded the Court that the annual review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention under Section 25 para. 3 of the Penal Code, fixed for 1 October 1981 (cf. para. 62 above), was overdue.   According to a file note of 11 December 1981 the file was transmitted to the judge only on this date.   The judge asked the psychiatric hospital for a report on the applicant.   66.      On 8 February 1982 the Regional Court maintained the detention order under Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal Code on the ground that the applicant continued to be a dangerous person as confirmed by the report of the psychiatric hospital.   The applicant did not appeal against this decision.           b)   Second review period             -------------------- 67.      In July, September and October 1983, the applicant requested his release, observing that no decision ordering his continued detention had been taken within the statutory one year time-limit, which had expired on 8 February 1983.   Following the application of 13 July 1983, the Court requested the return of the file from the public prosecutor's office where it had been since 2 May 1983.   Following the application of 19 September 1983, the Court urged the psychiatric expert, to whom the file had been sent on 11 August 1983, to submit his comments on the necessity of further psychiatric treatment (Nachbehandlung).   The report was submitted on 22 October 1983 (see para. 110 below).   68.      On 14 February 1984 the Court of Appeal, acting upon a hierarchical appeal (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) by the applicant, directed the Regional Court to take its decision as quickly as possible.   69.      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 (cf. para. 112 below), the applicant's state of mental health had not essentially changed.   His paranoia querulans could not be stopped even with modern medical treatment.   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. After his release he would certainly refuse to undergo any treatment which, however, was absolutely necessary.   The applicant's behaviour without the sedative effect of this treatment could not be predicted. The danger requiring his detention thus continued to exist.   70.      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 reached 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. There was thus no basis for a conditional release under Section 47 para. 2 o