PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 67175/01) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Karl Reinprecht (“the applicant”), on 25 August 2000.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mrs C. Lanschützer, a lawyer practising in Graz. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained, in particular, that the hearings regarding the prolongation of his pre-trial detention were not held in public.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

On 8 April 2003 the Chamber decided to communicate the applicant's complaint about the lack of public hearings regarding his pre-trial detention to the Government (Rule 54 § 2 (b)) and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

By a decision of 12 October 2004, the Chamber declared the application admissible as regards the communicated complaint.

On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). Written submissions were also received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, which had been granted leave by the President to intervene as a third party (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Graz.

On 6 May 2000 the Graz Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on suspicion of attempted sexual coercion (geschlechtliche Nötigung). The court based the suspicion against the applicant on the statement of the victim, who had identified the applicant in an identity parade. Further, it considered that, given the applicant's criminal record, there was a risk that he might commit another offence similar to the one of which he was suspected (Tatbegehungsgefahr).

On 19 May 2000 the Graz Regional Court, after a hearing held in the presence of the public prosecutor, the applicant and his defence counsel, ordered that the applicant's pre-trial detention should continue. Referring to the testimony of the victim, it found that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. Further, there was a risk that he might commit another offence similar to the one of which he was suspected. The court stated that the applicant had nine previous convictions, mainly for property-related offences, but recently also for violent crimes. The court found that, in the light of the applicant's recidivism and his character, the prolongation of his pre-trial detention was reasonable. The applicant appealed against this decision.

On 7 June 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), sitting in private, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Regional Court's decision.

On 19 July 2000 the Graz Regional Court, after holding a hearing in the presence of the parties, dismissed an application for the applicant's release and ordered the continuation of his pre-trial detention. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 20 July 2000 the applicant lodged another application for release. He stressed that there were no reasons to maintain his pre-trial detention.

On 26 July 2000 the public prosecutor's office (Staatsanwaltschaft) filed the bill of indictment. The applicant appealed against it.

On 2 August 2000 the Graz Regional Court, having held a hearing in the presence of the parties, ordered that the applicant's pre-trial detention should continue.

On 7 August 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted that there was no reasonable suspicion against him as the testimony of the only witness for the prosecution had been contradictory.

On 17 August 2000 the Graz Court of Appeal, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the bill of indictment and the appeals against the Regional Court's decisions of 19 July 2000 and 2 August 2000. It found that there was no doubt about the credibility of the witness and that there was therefore a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. Further, it upheld the Regional Court's repeated finding that reasons for detention on remand (Haftgründe) existed.

On 18 September 2000 the applicant lodged a fundamental rights complaint (Grundrechtsbeschwerde) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) against this decision. He submitted that there was no strong suspicion against him and that there were no reasons to maintain the detention on remand.

On 16 October 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting in private, dismissed the complaint. It found that there was no doubt about the credibility of the witness and that reasons for the applicant's detention on remand subsisted.

On 24 October 2000 the Regional Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, held a public hearing, convicted the applicant of attempted sexual coercion and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.

On 8 March 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's plea of nullity.

On 8 May 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, but allowed one lodged by the public prosecutor and increased the term of imprisonment to two years and six months.