CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 1 mai 1969

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called "the Convention");   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged by Rudolf Köplinger, an Austrian national, against the Government of Austria (No. 1850/63);   Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers on 21 November 1968 and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the Court in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas, in his application introduced on 17 December 1962 and registered on 8 April 1963, and in subsequent correspondence Rudolf Köplinger complained of violations of Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention (art. 5, art. 6, art. 13), alleged to have taken place during his detention pending trial and during the judicial proceedings instituted against him in Austria;   Whereas the Commission on 29 March 1966 declared the application admissible insofar as it related to alleged violations of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4) and of paragraphs 1 and 3 (b) of Article 6 (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-b) of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission during its examination of the merits of the case considered:   (a)    whether the procedure in dealing with the applicant's request for conditional release, in particular as regards the alleged violation of the principle of "equality of arms" was in conformity with Article 5, paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 5-4, art. 6-1) of the Convention;   (b)    whether the applicant's case was heard within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);   (c)    whether the applicant had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence as required by Article 6, paragraph 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) of the Convention and, in particular, whether there was a violation of that provision because of the many changes in the lawyers appointed to defend him by the Court, and because the prison authorities did not allow him to bring his manuscripts and his annotated documents with him when he was taken to the visitors' room of the prison where he was detained to meet his legal representative;   Whereas the Commission on 4 October 1967, having received the Sub-Commission's report, adjourned its consideration of the case pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Court of Human Rights in the "Neumeister Case";   Whereas the Commission, in its report, expressed the following opinion;   (i)    unanimously that there was no violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 5-4, art. 6-1) of the Convention;   (ii)   by nine votes to four that the period under consideration did not exceed the reasonable time envisaged in Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) and that consequently that provision had not been violated;   (iii) by eight votes to five that there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) of the Convention by reason of the changes in the legal representation and by ten votes to three that this provision had not been violated by reason of the fact that the applicant was prevented from taking certain documents with him when he met his legal representative;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention,   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.