Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19761211-741276
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 15:22:55
Document Index: 618048430

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 14', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', 'HUDOC ']

HAASE c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche HAASE c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partly admissible ; partly inadmissibleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7412/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-12-11;7412.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : HAASEDéfendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7412/76 Dieter HAASE v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN YDietrHASEc/RPUBLIQFDEA'LMGN E DECISION of 11 December 1976 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 11 dÃ©cembre 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ9t e
Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention : Reasonable time . Applicant accused of espionege kept in detention on remend 3 times for a total length of 28 months . Complaint declared admissible . Articfe 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention : Reasonable time (criminal) . Proceedings having lasted 6 yeers and two months, from first arrest till conviction in first instance . Complaint declared admissible . Article 5, paragraphe 3 de la Convention : DÃ©lai raisonnable . tncufpÃ© d'espionnage maintenu en dÃ©tention provisoire B trois reprises pendant 28 mois au total . Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevebte . Article 6, paregrephe 1, de la Convention : DAtai reisonneble IpAneh . ProcÃ©dure ayant durÃ© 6 ans et 2 mois, de la premiPrrr arrestation B la condamnation en premiÃ¨re instance . Grief dAclarÃ© recevebte . IfranÃ§ais : voirp . 1371
The facts of the case as presented by the Parties and apparently not in dispute between them may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a German national, born in 1937 and at present detained in prison on remand in Munich . He is a lew graduate and a reserve captain of the Federal armed forces . He is divorced . He is represented before the Commission by Mr K . Hagen, a barrister practising in Munich .
A . As concerns the applicant's detentio n 1970 1 . The applirant was provisionally apprehended on 26 March 1970 and, by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the investigating judge of the Federal Court of Justice of 27 March 1970, remanded in custody . It appear that he was suspected of having committed espionage for an intelligence service of the German Democratic Republic since 1962 . It was considered that there was a danger of his absconding, in particular as he was divorced and had no children ; his professional ties were not strong enough to restrain him ; and it was known that agents for eastern intelligence were inclined to obey calls to escape to East Berlin or the Soviet occupied zone .
On 14 July 1970 the applicant requested to be released from detention . By order of 24 July 1970 the investigating judge refused the request . On 12 August 1970 upon the applicant's request, an oral remand hearing was held before the investigating judge of the Federal Court of Justice . On 13 October 1970, by way of the statuto ry examination of the detention on remand, the 3rd criminal division of the Federal Cou rt of Justice ordered that detention on remand should continue . The applicant raised an objection IBeschwerdel against this order and on 12 November 1970 the objection was rejected as inadmissible . On 16 December 1970, on the applicant's request, an oral remand hearing was again held . The applicant then challenged the juges who had pa rt icipated in the decision of 12 November 1970 alleging that they were biased . 1971 On 25 January 1971 this challenge was dismissed as unfounded . By order of 16 February 1971 the 3rd criminal division of the Federal Court of Justice ordered the continuation of detention on remand . On 23 March 1971, in the remand prison at Cologne, the applicant was heard by the investigating judge on his situation as to detention . Again on 27 May and 9 September 1951 this court took decisions continuing the applicant's detention . On 9 November 1971 the investigating judge at the Bavarian Supreme Land Court added to the reason given for detaining the applicant the further reason that there also was risk of collusion . However, the enforcement of the warrant of arrest was conditionally suspended . The applicant was released from remand custody on condition i .a . that he refrained from contacting his previous principals in East Berlin . 1973 2 . On 20 September 1973 the Federal Prosecutor's Office requested the investigating judge to revoke the suspension of the enforcement of the warrant of arrest . Thereupon, under order of 18 October 1973, the warrant of arrest was again enforced . The judge held that the applicant had grossly breached the conditions for release in that he had not only written but also sent an envoy six times to East Berlin . The applicant was taken into custody on 22 October 1973 and brought before the investigating judge on the following day . However, on 26 November 1973, the 3rd criminal division of the Federal Court of Justice, having consulted the parties, decided to again conditionally suspend the enforcement of the original warrant of arrest . Although the applicant was still under heavy suspicion the court found no sufficient risk of collusion . There was still the risk of his absconding but the court held that the restrictions imposed on the applicant were sufficient to restrain him . 3 . Following the filing of the indictment by the Federal Prosecutor's Office against the applicant with the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court, this court issued on 25 September 1975a new warrant for the applicant's arrest . The court held that the applicant might abscond even considering the length of his previous detention . The applicant was now enabled to predict the length of his sentence in case of conviction and it was clear that the new situation contrasted with his previous understanding of the penal consequences of his behaviour . The court also pointed out that the applicant had n o
- 128 _
lasting employment and no fixed family relations and, moreover, good knowledge of several foreign languages . Thus, the applicant was again arrested on 29 September 1975 and brought before a judge on the following day . On 1 October 1975 the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court having heard the applicant upheld the renewed execution of the warrant of arrest and submitted the files to the Federal Court of Justice for e remand hearing . It was added that the continued detention of the applicant was not disproportional to the importance of the case and a sentence he might expect . 1975 On 7 November 1975 the Federal Court of Justice, having consulted the parties, decided that the applicant should be kept in continued custody on remand and that their next review would be in three months . Up to that time the reviews would be made through the Bavarian Supreme Land Court . The reasons for further detaining the applicant were in particular that he was heavily suspected of having committed the acts described in the indictment . It was true that the applicant had withdrawn certain confessions but the suspicion of treason was based on statements by several witnesses . The court related the risk of the applicant's absconding to the severe charges made against him, his loose family ties, his knowledge of languages, his possible trust that he might receive assistance from the GDR and a statement that he had put money aside . In these circumstances the court gave no weight to a statement by a professor B . Idated 30 October 1975) who excluded from a medical point of view any risk that the applicant might abscond . The court stated that the applicant's fitness for detention would be examined in connection with an examination on his criminal responsibility which had previously been ordered (cf . below) . The court concluded that the continuation of the applicant's detention in these circumstances was not out of proportion to the importance of the case, the severity of the charges and, in case of conviction, the sentence which might be expected . On 29 December 1975 the Bavarian Supreme Land Court held an oral remand hearing following a request by the applicant . 1976 This court then ordered on 5 January 1976 the continuation of the remand custody . Finally on 28 January the Federal Court of Justice dismissed i .a . the applicants objection to that order as unfounded . The applicant's trial began on 5 February 1976 before the Bavarian Supreme Land Court and on 19 May 1976 he was convicted of treason against the State of an especially serious nature in a unity of deed with continuous violation of official secrecy and continuous corruption, and sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment . Ae concerns certaln medical evidenc e Finally the applicant has submitted various medical documents . It appears i .a . that the Cologne Prison Psychiatrist Dr . J . examined the applicant on 31 March 1971 and considered that his deprivation of liberty caused precarious detention damage Ibedenkliche Haftschiidenl . Further, on 22 December 1975 Dr . W . e neurologist in Hannover found the applicant to be suffering from cyclothymia (manic-depressive illness) and the doctor expressed his considerable doubts (erhebliche Bedenken) about the continued detention of the applicant .
As concerns the determination of the charge s Concurrently with the proceedings outlined under A . above, the authorities also proceeded with the investigation of their suspicions against the applicant . 1970 Following his apprehension on 26 March 1970 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge on 27 March 1970 and he denied the allegations made against him . Thereupon, he was interrogated on three days in April, five days in May, eight days in June, five days in July (when he was also refused release) and (apart from the remand hearing) two days in August 1970 . On 16 September 1970 the Federal Prosecutor's Office asked the expert in the Federal Ministry of Defence to give an expert opinion on papers seized from the applicant and originating in the Federal Armed Forces . The applicant was interrogated again on two days in October and November 1970 Ileaving aside the detention proceedings) . On 16 November 1970 the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations, rendered an interim report and transmitted the papers to the Federal Prosecutor's Office where they were received on 20 November 1970 . By that time 269 persons had been interrogated, some by the police, others by a judge . By letter of 2 December 1970 the Federal Prosecutor's Office asked the Federal Minister of Defence when the expert opinion would be ready . The applicant was again interrogated once in December still denying the acts of treason with which he was charged land there was a remand hearing) . On 22 December 1970 the Federal Prosecutor's Office applied to the investigating judge of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court for judicial preliminary investigation proceedings . 1971 By order of 4 January 1971 these proceedings were opened, and on 11 January the expert of the Federal Ministry of Defence rendered a provisional expert opinion . By letter of 16 February 1971 (which was the same day as continued detention was ordered) the applicant's counsel submitted that the Bavarian Supreme Land Court had no local jurisdiction, which submission was adoped by the applicant on 19 February . On 8 March 1971 this submission was rejected by the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court . On 10 March 1971 the applicant informed the investigating judge that from then on he would make no more statements . On 22 and 23 March 1971, in the rooms of the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the investigating judge sifted the seized documents and property, and on 6 April 1971 the evidence seized was taken to Munich . On the same day the investigating judge sent the files of the case to the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation for inspection by counsel for the defence (who finished on 23 April 1971) . On the following two days the judge examined an important witness . The applicant, by letter of 25 April 1971, informed the investigating judge that he would make no more statements before 30 May 1971 . On 6 May 1971 the investigating judge sent the files to the Federal Prosecutor's Office for the remand hearing before the Federal Court of Justice .
Interrogation of the applicant continued on nine days in June 1971 and on 8 July the applicant declared that he was now determined to make a confession . Then the applicant was interrogated on ten deys in July, twelve days in August and further on twenty-one days in September 1971 (during which month there also was a decision on his detention) . Further interrogations of the applicant followed on 14 days in October . His divorced wNe was heard on two days in November and the applicant once again before he was released . 1972 Once in February and five times in March 1972 the applicant's wife was heard again . The applicant was also interrogated again on nine days in July 1972 . Then he was seriously injured in a traffic accident and could not be heard for a considerable time . In the meanwhile on 18 May 1972 the investigating judge asked the Federal Prosecutor's Office for its observations on the proposed release of certain documents and property seized from the applicant . The observations were made on 23 June 1972 . 1973 On 24 April 1973 the investigating judge ordered the release to the applicant of a great number of seized documents and property . The applicant was interrogated egain twice in May 1973 and a particularwitness was heard on five days in September . Events in the remainder of the year concerned the applicants rearrest and further release . 1974 On 22 February 1974 the judicial preliminary investigation was closed . The investigating judge's report on the progress and the result of the judicial preliminary investigations ran to 294 pages . He also rendered an extensive documentation of the applicant's activities from 1958 to 1970 . The report and documentation together amounted to about 900 pages . According to the findings made in the judicial preliminary investigation the applicant, in the course of ten years, delivered to the people employing him as a spy about 80,000 pages of a variety of reports and papers . The volume of documents which had to be examined was about the same size . On 25 February 1974 the applicant challenged the investigating judge alleging that he was biased . The challenge was later dismissed as being devoid of substance . The applicant was interrogated on two occasions in April 1974 . On 9 April 1974 the Federal Prosecutor's Office requested the expert in the Federal Ministry of Defence to give a final expert opinion on the applicant's treacherous activities and in November 1974 the Federal Prosecutor's Office asked the Minister of Defence to increase the personnel of the expert section of the Ministry in view of the extraordinary dimensions of the applicant's activities on which the expert opinion was to be rendered . 1975 This was implemented in January 1975 and the expert opinion was delivered on 4 June 1975 . On 25 August 1975 the Federal Prosecutor's Office closed the investigation and filed an indictment against the applicant with the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court charging him with treason against the State of an especiall y
serious nature, continuous violation of official secrecy and continuous corruption . The files for the proceedings comprised 38 volumes of case-files, 7 volumes of supplementary or special files and 60 volumes of evidence . The indictment was received by the court on 2 September 1975 . (lt is recalled that the applicant was subsequently arrested for the third time and there were remand proceedings . ) On 9 October 1975 the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court ordered that the applicant be examined as to his criminal responsibility . On the next day Prof . Dr . M . of the Institute for Forensic Medicine of Munich was appointed to give his opinion .
In October the apartment of the applicant's mother was searched and in particular on 23 October 1975 a barrister, Mr B ., was assigned to the applicant as appointed defence counsel . The applicant's chosen counsel, Mr Hagen, filed a notice of objection dated 4 November 1975 against that appointment . This was rejected as inadmissible by the Federal Court of Justice on 1 December 1975 . On 4 December 1975 the expert Prof . Dr . M . gave the court a short version of the results of his examination . On 9 December 1975 the applicant challenged the reporting judge of the 3rd criminal division of the Bavarian Supreme Land Court alleging that he was biased . The applicant also challenged on 11 December the presiding judge and two associate judges on similar grounds . These challenges were dismissed on 22 December 1975 as unfounded .
In the meantime on 12 December 1975 the indictment preferred by the Federal Prosecutor was admitted and the main proceedings opened . On 15 December counsel appointed to defend the applicant requested to be relieved on account of the applicant's distrustful behaviour towards him . On the same day this request was granted and two other lawyers MM . P . and F . were designated as appointed detence counsels . By order of 19 December 1975 the oral hearing was fixed for 5 February 1976 and the following days . (It is recalled that on 29 December the court heard the applicant concerning his detention . ) Finally on 30 December 1975 the applicant challenged the reporting judge again and also the court clerk alleging that they were both biased . 1976 The Bavarian Supreme Court rejected on 8 January 1976 the above challenges as inadmissible (having previously ordered the applicant's continued detention) . Professor Dr . M .'s neurologic medical expert opinion comprising 166 pages was received on 14 January 1976 . On 2B January 1976 the Federal Courtof Justice dismissed the applirant's objection against the seizure of letters (and also his objection against detention) . On 5 February 1976, as previously stated, the applicant's trial began . It lasted three and a haN months . 62 witnesses were questioned and 16 expert witnesses heard . The applicant preferred a total of 20 challenges against members of the divisional court and some expert witnesses . All the challenges were dismissed, some of them being rejected as inadmissible because they were made with intention to delay the proceedings . It is finally recalled that the Bavarian Supreme Land Court convicted and sentenced the applicant on 19 May 1976 . The applicant has lodged an appeal (Revision) to the Federal Court of Justice .
THE COMPLAINT S The applicant alleges violations of - Art . 3 of the Convention in that he is detained although he is suffering from a spinal disease and cyclothymia, neither of which is adequately treated by the prison doctorâ¢ ; - of An . 5111, (3) and (4) of the Convention in that there exist no valid reasons for his arrest since November 1971 ; and - Art . 6 (1), (2) and (3) (b, c and d) of the Convention in that he has been treated for more than 2,145â¢â¢ days contrary to the presumption of innocence and that his attempts to lead a normal life and to found a family have been frustrated by his repeated arrest . He alleges that he is not capable of taking part in the proceedings and defending himsel( because of his state of health ; he cannot inspect the files and discuss them with his defence counsel . ill . THE PROCEEDING S The application was introduced on 22 January 1976 . The Rapporteur carried out his first preliminary examination as to the admissibility of the application on 3 March 1976 and the application was registered on 4 March 1976 . The Rapporteur presented his Report, provided for in Rule 40 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to the Commission . On 20 May 1976 the Commission, having deliberated, decided to give notice of the application, in accordance with Rule 42 (2) (b), to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, and to invite the Government to submit before 19 July 1976 its observations in writing on the admissibility of the complaints made under Arts . 6 (1) and 5 (3) of the Convention concerning the length of the applicant's proceedings . The respondent Government submitted their observations on the date so fixed . In accordance with the irutructions of the Commission's President these observations were communicated to the applicant who was invited to submit before 23 August 1976 any written observations he might wish to make in repty . Following the applicant's request the President agreed on 20 August 1976 to extend the applicant's time limit to 10 September 1976 . Observations were submitted by the applicant on 24 August and 8 September 1976 . The Rapporteur presented his second report dated 28 September 1976 to the Commission . By letter of 4 November 1976 the respondent Government submitted a reply to the applicant's observations in reply on the admissibility, which was communicated to the applicant for information . The applicant submitted further argument on 6 December 1976. The Rapporteur informed the Commission of these recent development in his report dated 23 November 1976 and orally at the present session .
â¢ It vwuld seem, ahhouah, that the applicant is not pursuinp this allegation (under An . 31 since he is planning to take anion under anicle 23 of the Introductory Act to the Judicature Act . â¢' A1 the tirne of lodging the appiicetion .
IV . THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S A . Observetions by the respondent Government As to Art. 5 (3) of the Conventio n The respondent Government observed that the applicant had been in remand custody three times . In judging the length of his pre-trial detention they relied on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Wemhoff Case (Yearbook 1968 pp . 802, 8031 . Accordingly the period of detention, with which Art . 5 (3) was concerned, ends with the day the charge is determined by a court of first instance . a) The period of detention from 26 March 1970 to 9 November 197 1 The respondent Government referred to the jurisprudence of the Wemhoff Case (Yearbook 1968, pp . 604-6071 according to which the question of a violation of Art . 5 (3) depends on whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify continued detention are relevant and sufficient to show that detention was not unreasonably prolonged . They alsorecalled that even detention on account of danger of suppression of evidence may be justified in view of the character of the offences charged and the extreme complexity of the case . The Government submitted that these requirements were fulfilled as regards this first period of detention . They pointed in particular to the exceptionally extensive investigations under this period . Reference was made to the report by the investigating judge . Accordingly, in order to clear up the offences, 269 persons were heard from March to December 1970 alone, apart from the applicant who was i .a . continuously interrogated from June 1971 to his release . The Government also pointed to the delaying tactics of the applicant and when it was found out that his confessions were largely false, another 50 days of interrogations were required . The Government finally mentioned, referring to the Wemhoff Case, that the interests of the accused should not stand in the way of the efforts of the judges to clarity fully the facts . b) The period of detention from 22 October to 26 November 1970 The respondent Government observed that this period of detention was relatively short and the applicant's re-arrest was solely due to his own behaviour-in that he grossly breached the conditions of his release . Thus, they submitted that a violation of Art . 5 (3) was out of the question . The Government stressed that the applicant-as on the other arrests-was brought promptly before a judge . c) The period of detention from 29 September 1975 to 19 May 1976 The respondent Government recalled that when the indictment had been filed, there was a considerable danger that the applicant might flee to the German Democratic Republic . They also pointed out that in spite of the applicant's many attempts to delay the progress of the proceedings by making unfounded or inadmissible applications, the proceedings were expedited with considerable energy . The Government did not consider that the trial itseH was unreasonably long having regard to the applicant's attempts to obstruct the proceedings and the complexity of the case . 2 . As to Art. 6 ( 1) of the Conventio n The respondent Government re-stated, referring to Art . 6 I11, that the applicant's right to have the charges determined within a reasonable time was not violated in respect of the time during which he was detained . Consequenth , in their fu rt he r
submissions, as far as the length of proceedings is concerned, the question arises whether du ri ng the time from his release on 9 November 1971 to his arrest on 25 September 1975, there has been an unreasonable delay . In the Government's view this was not the case . 1972 They recalled that in 1972 and 1973 the judicial preliminary investigation which could not be closed before 1974, was continued . In this investigation considerable d'rfficulties had to be overcome . The judge in charge of the investigation reported on 5 February 1974 that his initial, rough evaluation of the applicant's statements, which was supplemented by extensive interrogation of witnesses in March 1972, showed that large parts of the applicant's revelations were false . The applicant, whose occupation had to be taken into consideration, was heard again in July in the presence of a military expert and he now gave new versions incriminating third persons . The judge also reported that the statements of the applicant had been taken down in shorthand and the transcription took some time . Then the defence was granted inspection of the files in September and October 1972 . The statements taken down in shorthand had to be confirmed and the applicant was interrogated on 29 December . However, as the applicant had purposefully and systematically obscured and confused large parts of his deeds, the authorities therefore proceeded to an extensive analysis and documentation of the evidence which was concluded in April 1973 . Parallel with this work notes made by the applicant and banking vouchers were thoroughly exemined . This took many months, but brought the most valuable knowledge .
1973 Finally, according to the report of the judge, the provisional result required further interrogation on a number of further offences which had been discovered . This interrogation was held on 2 and 3 May 1973, but was brusquely broken off by the applicant who was very depressed by the results of the analysis . He promised, however, to make further statements, but no further statements on the case were made by him thereafter . The respondent Government pointed out that it was lawful for the applicant to deny the charge but, on the other hand, he must then put up with delays of the proceedings caused by his deceptive and obscuring mano3uvres . 1974/75 The respondent Government observed that in 1974/75 the speedy progress of the proceedings was hindered by the inability of the expert in the Federal Ministry of Defence to render his opinion in a short time . However, the Prosecutor had successfully urged a speedy delivery of the expert opinion and, therefore, in the Government's submission, the requirements which can reasonably be set up under Art . 6 (1) were fulfilled . Finally the Government referred to the facts submitting that these show that the further proceedings were expeditiously conducted with the result that, not quite a year later, the applicant was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment .
- 1 35 -
3 . Conclusio n The respondent Government concluded that the facts did not give reason to assume that the Federal Republic of Germany had violated Art . 5 (3) and Art . 6 11) of the Convention, and they submitted that the application should be considered inadmissible in accordance with Art . 27 because it was man'rfestly ill-founded . B . Observations in reply by the applican t The applicant submitted in reply that the length of his detention was inhuman and he apparently considers that his detention, as well as his sentence, was out of proportion .
In particular he considers that his detention has hit him hard and he refers to the medical cenificates of Mr J . and Dr . W . He maintains that he is still not being given sufficient medical attention and he is requesting remission of his detention . The applicant states that he had on the material before the Court estimated that he could expect a sentence of three-and-a-half years, and he recalls that the prosecutor, subsequent to the confessions, had thought that six years could be expected . He refers also to the length of his detention seen in relation to the break in his professional activity and his considerably reduced criminal responsibility, as confirmed by Professor M . The applicant has difficulty in understanding the point made by the respondent Government when citing the report of the examining judge . He points out that his revelations and confessions were substantially included in the indictment and not disregarded by the Court later . He points out that he had been in solitary confinement for quite some time and the judge encouraged him to make statements which he exaggerated because he wanted to get out of detention . His later withdrawal of his confessions was due to the disappointment with being back in jail and could not be held against him since he was in bad mental condition . V . THE LA W 1 . The applicant was first arrested on 26 March 1970 on a charge of having committed espionage for an intelligence service of the German Democratic Republic since 1962 . On 25 August 1975 the Federal Prosecutor's Office filed the indictment against the applicant with the Bavarian Supreme Land Court acting as the Court of first instance . The applicant was convicted in this Court on 19 May 1976 . In the meantime he had been released on 9 November 1971 . He had, however, been detained again from 22 October 1973 to 26 November 1973 . He had been rearrested on 29 September 1975 . 2 . The Commission invited the respondent Government to submit its observations on the admissibility of the applicant's complaints made under Arts . 6 (1) and 5 (3) of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings . The respondent Government submitted that the proceedings against the applicant were not unduly prolonged . In particular, the applicant's first period of detention was not unreasonably prolonged having regard to the exceptionally extensive investigations and the applicant's delaying tactics . His second arrest was solely due to his own behaviour and as concerns his third arrest there was a considerable risk of his absconding .
Further, in the respondent Government's submission, the applicant's right to have the charges determined within a reasonable time had not been violated in respect of the time during which he was detained, and there had not otherwise been any unreasonable delay . The Government pointed to the considerable difficulties in the investigations caused in particular by the extraordina ry volume of the case and the applicant's systematical deceptive manosuvres . They stressed that the proceedings eventually were expedited with considerable energy. The Government concluded that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded . 3 . The Commission has carried out a prelimina ry examination of the information and arguments submitted to it by the pa rties concerning the applicant's complaints under Arts . 6 (1) and 5 (3) of the Convention . 4 . In establishing the length of the proceedings the Commission has to take into account the time from 26 March 1970 to 19 May 1976, which is more than six years . The Commission is not satisfied that the information given concerning the procedure of investigation shows that this period of time was reasonable in the sense of Art . 6 111 of the Convention . Therefore, the Commission does not on the material before it come to the conclusion that the application is man'rfestly ill-founded and inadmissible on that ground . Concerning Art . 5 (3) the Commission is of the opinion that the period of detention cannot be judged in isolation from the totality of the proceedings . 5 . For these reasons and without prejudging in any way the merits of the case, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE . ( TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par les parties, et apparemment non contestÃ©s entre elles, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant, citoyen allemand, nÃ© en 1937, est actuellement en dÃ©tention provisoire Ã Munich . II est licenciÃ© en droit et capitaine de rÃ©serve des forces armÃ©es fÃ©dÃ©rales . II est divorcÃ© . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Mâ¢ K . Hagen, avocat Ã Munich . A . Concernant la dÃ©tention du requÃ©ran t 1970 1 . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© mis en Ã©tat d'arrestation provisoire le 26 mars 1970 et, en vertu d'un mandat d'arrÃªt dÃ©cernÃ© par le juge d'instruction de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice le 27 mars 1970, placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire . Il apparait qu'il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir espionnÃ© depuis 1962 pour le compte d'un service de renseignements de la RÃ©publique dÃ©mocratique allemande . On estimait qu'il y avait un danger de fuite, en particulier du fait qu'il Ã©tait divorcÃ© et n'avait pas d'enfant ; ses attaches professionnelles n'Ã©taient pas suffisamment fortes pour l'en empÃªcher et il Ã©tait connu que des agents des services de renseignements orientaux Ã©taient enclins Ã obÃ©ir Ã des invitations Ã passer Ã Berlin-Est ou Ã la zone d'occupation soviÃ©tique .
Le 14 juillet 1970, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© sa mise en libe rtÃ© . Par une ordonnance du 24 juillet 1970 le juge d'instruction a rejetÃ© la demande . Le 12 aoÃ¹t 1970, Ã la demande du requÃ©rant, la question de la dÃ©tention provisoire a fait l'objet d'une audience devant le juge d'instruction de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice . Le 13 octobre 1970, au cours de l'examen rÃ©glementaire de la dÃ©tention provisoire, la troisiÃ¨me Chambre criminelle de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice a ordonnÃ© la poursuite de la dÃ©tention provisoire . Le requÃ©rant a intentÃ© un recours ( Beschwerde ) contre ce tte ordonnance et, le 12 novembre 1970, son recours a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© comme irrecevable .
Le 16 dÃ©cembre 1970, Ã la demande du requÃ©rant, s'est tenue une nouvelle audience Ã propos de la dÃ©tention provisoire . Le requÃ©rant a alors rÃ©cusÃ© les magistrats qui avaient pris pa rt Ã la dÃ©cision du 12 novembre 1970, en les accusant de partialitÃ© . 1971 Le 25 janvier 1971 la rÃ©cusation a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e comme mal fondÃ©e . Par une ordonnance du 16 fÃ©vrier 1971, la troisiÃ©me Chambre criminelle de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice a ordonnÃ© le maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention provisoire .
Le 23 mars 1971, Ã la maison d'arrÃ¨t de Cologne, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© entendu par le juge d'instruction sur sa situation en ce qui concerne sa dÃ©tention . Les 27 mai et 9 septembre 1971 la Cour a Ã nouveau dÃ©cidÃ© le maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention . Le 9 novembre 1971, le juge d'instruction de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re a ajoutÃ© le risque de collusion aux motifs pour lesquels le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ©tenu . Cependant il a Ã©tÃ© sursis sous condition Ã l'exÃ©cution du mandat d'arrÃªt . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© mis en libertÃ© provisoire Ã condition notamment qu'il s'abstienne d'entrer en contact avec ses anciens chefs de Berlin-Est .
1973 2 . Le 20 septembre 1973, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© au juge d'instruction de rÃ©voquer la suspension de l'exÃ©cution du mandat d'arrÃªt . C'est pourquoi, par une ordonnance du 18 octobre 1973, le mandat d'arrÃªt a de nouveau Ã©tÃ© mis Ã exÃ©cution . Le juge a dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant avait nettement enfreint les conditions de sa mise en libertÃ© parce qu'il avait non seulement Ã©crit Ã Berlin-Est mais y avait envoyÃ© un messaqer Ã six reprises . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© en dÃ©tention le 22 octobre 1973 et il a comparu devant le juge d'instruction le lendemain . Cependant, le 26 novembre 1973, la troisiÃ©me Chambre criminelle de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice, aprÃ©s avoir consultÃ© les parties, a dÃ©cidÃ© de surseoir conditionellement Ã l'exÃ©cution du mandat d'arrÃªt initial . Bien que le requÃ©rant fÃ»t encore fortement soupÃ§onnÃ©, la Cour a estimÃ© que le risque de collusion n'Ã©tait pas suffisant . Le danger de fuite existait encore mais la Cour a estimÃ© que les restrictions imposÃ©es au requÃ©rant suffiraient Ã le retenir . 3 . AprÃ©s que le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a dÃ©posÃ© l'acte d'accusation contre le requÃ©rant auprÃ©s de la troisiÃ©me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re, celle-ci a dÃ©cernÃ©, le 25 septembre 1975 un nouveau mandat d'arrÃªt contre le requÃ©rant . La Cour, tout en ayant Ã l'esprit la durÃ©e de sa prÃ©cÃ©dente dÃ©tention, estimait que l e
-138_
requÃ©rant pouvait prendre la fuite . Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait maintenant Ã mÃªme de prÃ©voir la durÃ©e de sa peine en cas de condamnation et il comprenait Ã©videmment mieux qu'auparavant les consÃ©quences pÃ©nales de son comportement . La Cour relevait aussi que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas d'emploi stable ni de relations familiales fixes, qu'il avait en outre une bonne connaissance de plusieurs langues Ã©trangÃ¨res . Le requÃ©rant a donc Ã©tÃ© arr0tÃ© de nouveau le 29 septembre 1975 et traduit devant un juge le lendemain . Le 1â¢' octobre 1975, la troisiÃ¨me Chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ¨re, aprÃ¨s avoir entendu le requÃ©rant, a confirmÃ© la reprise de l'exÃ©cution du mandat d'arrÃªt et a transmis les dossiers Ã la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice pour qu'elle statue sur la dÃ©tention provisoire . Elle ajoutait que la poursuite de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas hors de proportion avec l'importance de l'affaire et la peine Ã laquelle il pouvait s'attendre . 197 5 Le 7 novembre 1975, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice, aprÃ¨s avoir pris l'avis des parties, a dÃ©cidÃ© que le requÃ©rant devait Ãªtre maintenu en dÃ©tention provisoire et qu'elle examinerait Ã nouveau son cas trois mois plus tard . Jusque-lÃ , les rÃ©examens de la dÃ©tention seraient assurÃ©s par la Cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re . Parmi les raisons de maintenir le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention figurait en particulier le fait qu'il Ã©tait fortement soupÃ§onnÃ© des agissements dÃ©crits dans l'acte d'accusation . Certes, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait revenu sur certains aveux mais le soupÃ§on de trahison se fondait sur les dÃ©clarations de plusieurs tÃ©moins . La Cour mentionnait le danger que le requÃ©rant ne prit la fuite vu les graves accusations portÃ©es contre lui, le relachement de ses liens familiaux, sa connaissance de langues Ã©trangÃ©res, l'espoir qu'il avait peut-Ãªtre de recevoir l'assistance de la RDA et une dÃ©claretion selon laquelle il avait mis de l'argent de cbtÃ© . Dans ces circonstances, la Cour n'accordait aucun poids Ã une dÃ©claration du Professeur B, (en date du 30 octobre 1975) qui excluait du point de vue mÃ©dical tout risque que le requÃ©rant ne prSt la fuite . La Cour dÃ©clarait que l'on examinerait l'aptitude du requÃ©rant Ã la dÃ©tention en mbme temps que sa responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale dont l'examen avait Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ© prÃ©cÃ©demment (voir ci-dessous) . La Cour concluait que dans ces circonstances la poursuite de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas disproportionnÃ©e Ã l'importance de l'affaire, Ã© la gravitÃ© des accusations et, dans le cas d'une condamnation, Ã la peine Ã laquelle on pouvait s'attendre . Le 29 dÃ©cembre 1975, la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re a examinÃ© la question de la dÃ©tention provisoire Ã la demande du requÃ©rent . 1976 Cette Cour ordonna ensuite, le 5 janvier 1976, la poursuite de la dÃ©tention provisoire . Enfin, le 28 janvier la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice a rejetÃ© entre autres le recours du requÃ©rant contre cette ordonnance, comme n'Ã©tant pas fondÃ© . Le procÃ©s du requÃ©rant s'ouvrit le 5 fÃ©vrier 1976 devant la cour d'appel de BeviÃ©re et le 19 mai 1976 il a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable de trahison contre l'Etat d'une gravitÃ© toute particuliÃ©re, et constituant un concours d'infractions composÃ© de la violation prolongÃ©e de secrets officiels et d'une corruption continue, et il a Ã©tÃ© Ã§ondamnÃ© Ã 11 ans de prison .
B . Concernant certaines piÃ¨ces mÃ©dicale s Enfin, le requÃ©rant a produit plusieurs piÃ©ces mÃ©dicales . Il en ressort entre autres que le psychiatre de la prison de Cologne, le Dr J ., a examinÃ© le requÃ©rant le 31 mars 1971 et a estimÃ© que sa privation de libertÃ© lui portait un grave prÃ©judice (bedenkliche Haftsch5den) . En outre, le 22 dÃ©cembre 1975, le Dr W ., neurologue Ã Hanovre, a trouvÃ© que le requÃ©rant souffrait de cyclothymie (anomalie ou constitution psychique qui fait alterner les pÃ©riodes d'excitation et de dÃ©pression) et le mÃ©decin a exprimÃ© de sÃ©rieux doutes (erhebliche Bedenken) quant Ã l'aptitude du requÃ©rant Ã Ãªtre maintenu en dÃ©tention .
C . Concernant la dÃ©cision sur les accusation s ParallÃ¨lement Ã la procÃ©dure retracÃ©e sous A . ci-dessus, les autoritÃ©s procÃ©daient Ã l'instruction des chefs d'inculpation qui pesaient sur le requÃ©rant . 1970 A la suite de son arrestation le 26 mars 1970, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© traduit devant le juge d'instruction le 27 mars 1970 et il a niÃ© les accusations portÃ©es contre lui . LÃ©-dessus, il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© trois jours en avril, cinq jours en mai, huit jours en juin, cinq jours en juillet (moment auquel on lui a Ã©galement refusÃ© sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire) et (outre l'audience relative Ã la question de la dÃ©tention) deux jours en aoÃ¹t 1970 . Le 16 septembre 1970, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© Ã© l'expert du ministÃ©re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la dÃ©fense d'Ã©tablir un rapport sur les papiers saisis chez le requÃ©rant et Ã©manant des forces armÃ©es fÃ©dÃ©rales . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© Ã nouveau deux jours en octobre et novembre 1970 (indÃ©pendamment de la procÃ©dure sur la dÃ©tention) . Le 16 novembre 1970, le Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral des enqu8tes criminelles, chargÃ© jusquelÃ© de l'enquÃ©te, a remis un rapport provisoire et communiquÃ© les papiers au parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral qui les a reÃ§us le 20 novembre 1970 . A cette date, 269 personnes avaient Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©es soit par la police, soit par un magistrat . Par une lettre du 2 dÃ©cembre 1970, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© au Ministre fÃ©dÃ©ral de la dÃ©fense de lui indiquer quand l'expertise serait terminÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© Ã nouveau interrogÃ© en dÃ©cembre ; il a continuÃ© Ã nier les actes de trahison dont il Ã©tait accusÃ© (et il y a eu une audience Ã propos de la dÃ©tention) . Le 22 dÃ©cembre 1970, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© au juge d'instruction de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re l'ouverture d'une instruction judiciaire prÃ©paratoire . 1971 Cette instruction a Ã©tÃ© ouverte par ordonnance du 4 janvier 1971 et le 11 janvier l'expert du ministÃ©re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la dÃ©fense a remis un rapport provisoire . Par une lettre du 16 fÃ©vrier 1971 (date Ã laquelle a aussi Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ© le maintien en dÃ©tention), l'avocat du requÃ©rant a soutenu que la cour d'appel de BaviÃ¨re Ã©tait incompÃ©tente ratione loci, conclusion que le requÃ©rant a faite sienne le 19 fÃ©vrier . Le 8 mars 1971, cette conclusion a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e par la troisiÃ¨me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re . Le 10 mars 1971, le requÃ©rant a informÃ© le juge d'instruction qu'il ne ferait plus de dÃ©clarations Ã l'avenir .
Les 22 et 23 mars 1971, dans les locaux du Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral des enquÃªtes criminelles, le juge d'instruction a passÃ© au crible les documents et effets saisis, et le 6 avril 1971 les piÃ¨ces Ã© conviction saisies ont Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ©es Ã Munich . Le mÃªme jour, le juge d'instruction a adressÃ© le dossier de l'affaire au Bureau fÃ©dÃ©ral des enquÃªtes criminelles pour que l'avocat de la dÃ©fense les examine (cet examen a pris fin le 23 avril 1971) . Les deux jours suivants, le juge a entendu un tÃ©moin important . Par une lettre en date du 25 avril 1971, le requÃ©rant a informÃ© le magistrat instructeur qu'il ne ferait pas de nouvelle dÃ©claration avant le 30 mai 1971 . Le 6 mai 1971, le juge d'instruction a envoyÃ© les dossiers au parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral en vue de l'audience concernant la dÃ©tention provisoire qui devait avoir lieu devant la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice . L'interrogatoire du requÃ©rant s'est poursuivi pendant neuf jours en juin 1971, et le 8 juillet le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il Ã©tait prÃªt Ã faire des aveux . Il a alors Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© pendant dix jours en juillet, douze jours en aoÃ»t et Ã nouveau pendant vingt et un jours en septembre 1971 (une dÃ©cision sur sa dÃ©tention a Ã©galement Ã©tÃ© prise ce mois-lÃ ) . De nouveaux interrogatoires du requÃ©rant ont eu lieu pendant quatorxe jours en octobre . Son ex-femme a Ã©tÃ© entendue deux jours en novembre et le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© entendu une fois encore avant d'Ãªtre mis en libertÃ© . 1972 La femme du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© entendue Ã nouveau une fois en fÃ©vrier et Ã cinq reprises en mars 1972 . Le requÃ©rant a lui aussi Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© Ã nouveau neuf jours en juillet 1972 . II a alors Ã©tÃ© griÃ¨vement blessÃ© dans un accident de la circulation et n'a pu Ãªtre entendu pendant fort longtemps .
Entre-temps, le 18 mai 1972, le magistrat instructeur avait demandÃ© au parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral de prÃ©senter ses observations sur le projet de donner mainlevÃ©e de la saisie de certains documents et effets trouvÃ©s chez le requÃ©rant . Ces observations ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©es le 23 juin 1972 . 1973 Le 24 avril 1973, le magistrat instructeur a ordonnÃ© la remise au requÃ©rant d'un grand nombre de documents et effets saisis Ã nouveau .LerquÃ©antiog Ã deux reprises en mai 1973 et un tÃ©moi n a Ã©tÃ© entendu cinq jours en septembre . Les Ã©vÃ©nements marquants du reste de l'annÃ©e sont la nouvelle arrestation du requÃ©rant, suivie de sa remise en libertÃ© . 1974 Le 22 fÃ©vrier 1974, l'instruction judiciaire prÃ©peratoire a Ã©tÃ© close . Le rapport du juge d'instruction sur la progression et le rÃ©sultat de cette instruction ne comptait pas moins de 294 pages . Le juge a fait aussi un compte rendu dÃ©taillÃ© des activitÃ©s du requÃ©rant de 1958 Ã 1970 . Le rapport et le compte rendu totalisaient quelque 900 pages . Selon les conclusions de l'instruction judiciaire prÃ©paratoire le requÃ©rant avait, en dix ans, remis aux personnes qui l'employaient en qualitÃ© d'espion environ 80000 pages de divers rapports et documents . La masse des documents qui devaient Ãªtre examinÃ©s Ã©tait de la mÃªme importance . Le 25 fÃ©vrier 1974, le requÃ©rant a rÃ©cusÃ© le juge d'instruction, en invoquant sa partialitÃ© . Cette rÃ©cusation a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e comme dÃ©nuÃ©e de fondement . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© Ã deux reprises en avril 1974 .
Le 9 avril 1974, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© Ã l'expert du ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la dÃ©fense de remettre un rapport dÃ©finitif sur les trahisons du requÃ©rant et en novembre 1974, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a demandÃ© au ministre de la dÃ©fense de renforcer le personnel de la section d'expertise du ministÃ©re en raison de l'importance extraordinaire des activitÃ©s du requÃ©rant sur lesquelles devait porter l'expertise . 1975 Le personnel a Ã©tÃ© renforcÃ© en janvier 1975 et l'expertise remise le 4 juin 1975 . Le 25 aoÃ»t 1975, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a clos l'instruction et dÃ©posÃ© un act e
d'accusation contre le requÃ©rant auprÃ©s de la troisiÃ©me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re l'accusant de trahison contre l'Etat d'une gravitÃ© toute particuliÃ©re, d'une violation continue de secrets officiels et de corruption continue . Les dossiers de la procÃ©dure comprenaient 38 volumes de dossiers proprement dits, 7 volumes de documents complÃ©mentaires ou particuliers et 60 volumes d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve . La Cour a reÃ§u l'acte d'accusation le 2 septembre 1975 . 1II est rappelÃ© que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieurement arrÃ©tÃ© pour la troisiÃ©me fois et que la question de la dÃ©tention a fait l'objet d'un novel examen) . Le 9 octobre 1975, la troisiÃ©me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re a ordonnÃ© l'examen de la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale du requÃ©rant . Le lendemain, le Professeur M ., de l'institut de mÃ©decine lÃ©gale de Munich, a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© pour donner un avis . En octobre, l'appartement de la mÃ©re du requÃ©rant a fait l'objet d'une perquisition et, le 23 octobre 1975, un avocat, Mâ¢ B ., a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© pour dÃ©fendre le requÃ©rant . L'avocat choisi par celui-ci, Mâ¢ Hagen, a fait opposition le 4 novembre 1975 Ã cette dÃ©signation . La Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice a rejetÃ© cette opposition comme irrecevable le 1â¢, dÃ©cembre 1975 . Le 4 dÃ©cembre 1975, le Professeur M ., expert, a rÃ©sumÃ© Ã la Cour les rÃ©sultats de son examen . Le 9 dÃ©cembre 1975, le requÃ©rant a rÃ©cusÃ© le juge rapporteur de la troisiÃ¨me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ¨re en allÃ©guant sa partialitÃ© . Il a aussi rÃ©cusÃ© le 11 dÃ©cembre le juge prÃ©sident et deux juges assesseurs pour les mÃªmes motifs . Ces rÃ©cusations ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es le 22 dÃ©cembre 1975 comme non fondÃ©es . Entre-temps, le 12 dÃ©cembre 1975, l'acte d'accusation Ã©tabli par le chef du parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ© et la procÃ©dure principale avait dÃ©butÃ© . Le 15 dÃ©cembre, le conseil dÃ©signÃ© pour dÃ©fendre le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© Ã Ãªtre dÃ©chargÃ© de cette tÃ¢che en raison du comportement dÃ©fiant du requÃ©rant Ã son Ã©gard . Il a Ã©tÃ© fait droit Ã sa demande le mÃªme jour et deux autres avocats Maitres P . et F ., ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ©s pour la dÃ©fense du requÃ©rant . Par une ordonnance du 19 dÃ©cembre 1975, l'audience a Ã©tÃ© fixÃ©e au 5 fÃ©vrier 1976 et aux jours suivants . (11 est rappelÃ© que le 29 dÃ©cembre, la Cour avait entendu le requÃ©rant Ã propos de sa dÃ©tention . ) Enfin le 30 dÃ©cembre 1975, le requÃ©rant a Ã nouveau rÃ©cusÃ© le juge rapporteur ainsi que le greffier de la Cour, prÃ©tendant qu'ils Ã©taient tous les deux partiaux . 1976 La cour d'appel de BaviÃ¨re, aprÃ©s avoir ordonnÃ© le maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention, a rejetÃ© le 8 janvier 1976 les rÃ©cusations ci-dessus comme Ã©tant irrecevables . L'expertise neurologique du Professeur M . comprenant 166 pages, a Ã©tÃ© reÃ§ue le 14 janvier 1976 .
Le 28 janvier 1976, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice a dÃ©boutÃ© le requÃ©rant de son recours contre la saisie de lettres (et de son recours contre la dÃ©tention) . Le 5 fÃ©vrier 1976, comme il est dit plus haut, a commencÃ© le procÃ¨s du requÃ©rant . Il a durÃ© trois mois et demi . 62 tÃ©moins ont Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©s et 16 experts entendus . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©mis au total 20 rÃ©cusations contre des membres de la chambre criminelle et certains experts . Toutes les rÃ©cusations ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es, certaines comme Ã©tant irrecevables parce qu'elles Ã©taient prÃ©sentÃ©es dans l'intention de retarder la procÃ©dure . Il est enfin rappelÃ© que la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re a reconnu le requÃ©rant coupable et l'a condamnÃ© le 19 mai 1976 . Le requÃ©rant a interjetÃ© appel IRevision) auprÃ©s de la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice . Il .
Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue la violatio n - de l'article 3 de la Convention parce qu'il est dÃ©tenu bien que souffrant d'une maladie de la moelle Ã©piniÃ¨re et de cyclothymie, qui ne sont ni l'une ni l'autre traitÃ©es convenablement par le mÃ©decin de la prisonâ¢ , - de l'article 5, Â§Â§ 1, 3 et 4 de la Convention parce que son arrestation ne trouve pas de motifs valables depuis novembre 1971 ; et - de l'article 6, Â§Â§ 1, 2 et 3 (b, c et d) de la Convention parce qu'il a Ã©tÃ© traitÃ© pendant plus de 2145 joursâ¢â¢ contrairement au principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence et parce que ses tentatives pour mener une vie normale et fonder une famille ont Ã©tÃ© entravÃ©es par ses arrestations rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es . li prÃ©tend ne pas Ãªtre Ã mÃªme de participer Ã la procÃ©dure ni de se dÃ©fendre Ã cause de son Ã©tat de santÃ© ; il ne pourrait examiner les dossiers ni en discuter avec son dÃ©fenseur .
III . LA PROCEDUR E La requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite le 22 janvier 1976 . Le Rapporteur a procÃ©dÃ© Ã son premier examen prÃ©liminaire de la recevabilitÃ© le 3 mars 1976 et la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© enregistrÃ©e le 4 mars 1976 . Le Rapporteur a soumis Ã la Commission son rapport conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 40 du rÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission . Le 20 mai 1976 la Commission, aprÃ¨s avoir dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©, a dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 bl, de donner connaissance de la requÃ©te au Gouvernement de la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et d'inviter celui-ci Ã lui prÃ©senter par Ã©crit avant le 19 juillet 1976 ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© des griefs au titre des articles 6 Â§ 1 et 5Â§ 3 de la Convention concernant la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure contre le requÃ©rant . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a prÃ©sentÃ© ses observations Ã la date fixÃ©e . ConformÃ©ment aux instructions du PrÃ©sident de la Commission, ces observations ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es au requÃ©rant, qui a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit avant le 23 ao0t 1976 toutes observations qu'il aurait souhaitÃ© formuler en rÃ©ponse . â¢ II semble cependant que le reouÃ©rant ne maintienne Oes cette allÃ©gation lau titre de l'article 3) perce qÃ» il enviaepe d'engager une action en vertu de l'erticle 73 da la loi introductive A la loi sur l'organisation judiciair9 . â¢â¢ A la dete de l'introduclion de le requEte .
A la demande du requÃ©rant, le PrÃ©sident a acceptÃ© le 20 aoÃ¹t 1976 de prolonger le dÃ©lai ainsi imparti jusqu'au 10 septembre 1976 . Le requÃ©rant a prÃ©sentÃ© ses observations les 24 aoÃ¹t et 8 septembre 1976 . Le Rapporteur a soumis Ã la Commission son second rapport datÃ© du 28 septembre 1976 . Par une lettre du 4 novembre 1976, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a adressÃ© sa rÃ©ponse aux observations du requÃ©rant sur la recevabilitÃ©, rÃ©ponse qui a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©e Ã ce dernier pour information . Le requÃ©rant a prÃ©sentÃ© d'autres arguments le 6 dÃ©cembre 1976 .
Le Rapporteur a informÃ© la Commission de ces derniers faits dans son rapport datÃ© du 23 novembre 1976 puis oralement Ã la prÃ©sente session . IV . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S A . Obeervatione du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Quant Ã t Ã©rticie 5 Â§ 3 de fe Conventio n Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a relevÃ© que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire Ã trois reprises . Pour juger de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention avant le procÃ¨s, il s'est fondÃ© sur l'arr8t de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire Wemhoff (Annuaire 1968, pp . 802, 803) . D'aprÃ©s cet arrÃªt, la pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention Ã examiner sur le plan de l'a rt icle 5 Â§ 3 prend fin le jour oÃ¹ une juridiction de premiÃ©re instance statue sur l'accusation . a) Le pAriode de dÃ©tention entre le 26 mars 1970 et le 9 novembre 197 1 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© Ã la jurisprudence de l'affaire Wemhoff (Annuaire 1968, pp . 804-807) selon laquelle, pour apprÃ©cier la question d'une violation de l'article 5Â§ 3, il faut savoir a si les motifs donnÃ©s par les autoritÃ©s nationales pour justifier le maintien en dÃ©tention sont pertinents et suffisants pour faire admettre que la dÃ©tention n'a pas dÃ©passÃ© les limites raisonnables . Â» Il a aussi rappelÃ© que mÃªme la dÃ©tention Ã cause du danger de suppression de preuves peut se justifier par la nature des infractions dont un requÃ©rant est accusÃ© et l'extrÃ©me complexitÃ© de l'affaire . Le Gouvernement a soutenu que ces conditions Ã©taient remplies pour cette premiÃ©re pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention .
Il a en particulier mis en Ã©vidence l'instruction exceptionnellement approfondie au cours de cette pÃ©riode . Il a renvoyÃ© au rapport du magistrat instructeur . A la suite de celui-ci, pour Ã©lucider les infractions, rien qu'entre mars et dÃ©cembre 1970, 269 personnes ont Ã©tÃ© entendues en plus du requÃ©rant, qui a Ã©tÃ© notamment interrogÃ© de faÃ§on ininterrompue de juin 1971 Ã son Ã©largissement . Le Gouvernement a aussi insistÃ© sur les procÃ©dÃ©s dilatoires du requÃ©rant et lorsqu'il s'est rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© que ses aveux Ã©taient en grande partie mensongers, il a fallu 50 autres jours d'interrogatoire . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'affaire Wemhoff, le Gouvernement a enfin dÃ©clarÃ© que les intÃ©rÃ©ts de l'accusÃ© ne doivent pas nuire aux efforts poursuivis par les magistrats afin de faire pleinement la lumiÃ©re sur les faits dÃ©noncÃ©s . b) La pAriode de dÃ©tention entre le 22 octobre et le 26 novembre 1970 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a fait remarquer que cette pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention est relativement brÃ©ve et que la nouvelle arrestation du requÃ©rant n'est due qu'Ã© son propre comportement, en ce qu'il a grossiÃ©rement enfreint les conditions de so n
Ã©largissement . II n'Ã©tait donc pas question d'une violation de l'article 5 Â§ 3 . Le Gouvernement a prÃ©cisÃ© que le requÃ©rant - comme lors des autres arrestations - a Ã©tÃ© rapidement traduit devant un juge . cl La pÃ©riode de dAtention entre le 29 septembre 1975 et le 79 mei 1 976 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a rappelÃ© que lors du dÃ©p6t de l'acte d'accusation, il y avait un danger considÃ©rable que le requÃ©rant ne s'enfuit en RÃ©publique dÃ©mocratique allemande . Il a Ã©galement fait observer que, bien que le requÃ©rant ait Ã de nombreuses reprises tentÃ© de retarder les progrÃ¨s de la procÃ©dure en prÃ©sentant des demandes non fondÃ©es ou irrecevables, la procÃ©dure a Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e avec beaucoup d'Ã©nergie et de cÃ©lÃ©rhÃ© . Le Gouvernement n'estime pas que le procÃ¨s lui-mÃªme ait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©raisonnablement long vu les tentatives du requÃ©rant pour gÃªner la procÃ©dure et vu la complexitÃ© de l'affaire . Quent A/ Ã©rYlc/e 6Â§ 1 de la Conventio n A propos de l'article 6 Â§ 1, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a de nouveau affirmÃ© que le droit du requÃ©rant Ã obtenir dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable une dÃ©cision sur les accusations pesant contre lui n'a pas Ã©tÃ© violÃ© Ã cause de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention . En consÃ©quence, poursuh-il, pour ce qui est de la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure se pose la question de savoir si, entre la mise en libertÃ© du requÃ©rant le 9 novembre 1971 et son arrestation le 25 septembre 1975, il s'est Ã©coulÃ© un dÃ©lai dÃ©raisonnable . Selon le Gouvernement, cela n'a pas Ã©tÃ© le cas . 1972 Il rappelle qu'en 1972 et 1973 s'est poursuivie l'instruction judiciaire prÃ©paratoire, qui n'a pu se terminer avant 1974 . Au cours de cette instruction, il a fallu surmonter des difficultÃ©s considÃ©rebles . Le juge chargÃ© de l'instruction a rapportÃ© le 5 fÃ©vrier 1974 que de sa premiÃ©re et grossiÃ©re apprÃ©ciation des dÃ©clarations du requÃ©rant, complÃ©tÃ©es par un interrogatoire approfondi de tÃ©moins en mars 1972, il ressortait que les rÃ©vÃ©letions du requÃ©rant Ã©taient en grande partie fausses . Le requÃ©rant, dont l'activitÃ© professionnelle devait Ã©tre prise en considÃ©ration, a Ã©tÃ© entendu Ã nouveau en juillet en prÃ©sence d'un expert militaire et il a alors donnÃ© de nouvelles versions mettant des tiers en cause . Le juge a Ã©galement rapportÃ© que les dÃ©clarations du requÃ©rent avaient Ã©tÃ© prises en stÃ©nographie et que la transcription prenait un certain temps . Puis la dÃ©fense a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ©e Ã examiner les dossiers en septembre et octobre 1972 . Les dÃ©clarations prises en stÃ©nographie devaient Ãªtre confirmÃ©es et le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© le 29 dÃ©cembre. Toutefois, comme le requÃ©rant avait dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment et systÃ©matiquement obscurci et rendue confuse une grande partie de son activitÃ©, les autoritÃ©s ont dÃ» procÃ©der Ã une analyse et Ã une vÃ©rification approfondie des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve, qu'elles ont achevÃ©es en avril 1973 . ParallÃ¨lement, des notes prises par le requÃ©rant et des papiers bancaires ont Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s avec le plus grand soin . Ce travail a pris plusieurs mois mais a fourni des renseignements prÃ©cieux . 1973 Enfin, selon le rapport du juge, les rÃ©sultats provisoires nÃ©cessitaient un nouvel interrogatoire sur plusieurs autres infractions qui avaient Ã©tÃ© dÃ©couvertes . Cet interrogatoire a eu lieu les 2 et 3 mai 1973 mais a Ã©tÃ© brusquement interrompu par le requÃ©rant, fortement dÃ©primÃ© par les rÃ©sultats de l'analyse . Il a cependant promis de faire de nouvelles dÃ©clarations mais il ne devait plus en faire par la suite .
- 14rt-
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a relevÃ© qu'il Ã©tait lÃ©gitime pour le requÃ©rant de nier l'accusation mais qu'en revanche il devait alors s'accommoder des retards de la procÃ©dure dus Ã ses manÅuvres de tromperie et d'obscurcissement . 1974/1975 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a fait observer qu'en 1974/1975 la procÃ©dure n'a pu avancer rapidement parce que l'expert du ministÃ©re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la dÃ©fense n'a pu remettre son expertise dans un bref dÃ©lai . Toutefois, le chef du parquet avait ensuite rÃ©ussi Ã ce que l'expertise soit soumise rapidement et, selon le Gouvernement, les conditions qui peuvent raisonnablement Ãªtre imposÃ©es au regard de l'article 6 Â§ 1 ont donc Ã© tÃ© satisfaites .
Enfin, d'aprÃ¨s le Gouvernement, les faits montrent que la suite de la procÃ©dure a Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e avec diligence si bien que, moins d'une annÃ©e plus tard, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã 11 ans de prison . 3 . Conclusio n Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a conclu que les faits ne perme ttent pas de supposer que la RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne a violÃ© l'a rt icle 5 Â§ 3 ou l'a rt icle 6 Â§ 1 de la Convention, et il a soutenu que la requÃªte doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme irrecevable, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, parce que manifestement mal fondÃ©e . Observations du requÃ©rant en rÃ©ponse Le requÃ©rant a fait valoir en rÃ©ponse que la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention Ã©tait inhumaine et il semble estimer que sa dÃ©tention, de mÃªme que sa peine, sont disproportionnÃ©es aux accusations portÃ©es .
Il estime en particulier que sa dÃ©tention l'a sÃ©rieusement atteint et il invoque les certificats mÃ©dicaux de M . J . et du Dr W . . Il soutient qu'il ne reÃ§oit pas encore de soins mÃ©dicaux suffisants et il demande une remise de peine . Il dÃ©clare qÃ» Ã©tant donnÃ© les Ã©lÃ©ments soumis Ã la Cour, il avait estimÃ© pouvoir s'attendre Ã une peine de trois ans et demi, et il rappelle qu'aprÃ©s ses aveux, le chef du parquet avait estimÃ© qu'il pouvait s'attendre Ã six ans de prison . Il souligne aussi la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention vue sous l'angle de ses activitÃ©s professionnelles, qu'elle a interrompues, et de sa responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale considÃ©rablement rÃ©duite, comme l'a confirmÃ© le Professeur M . Le requÃ©rant voit mal pourquoi le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur cite le rapport du juge qui a procÃ©dÃ© Ã l'examen . Il fait remarquer que ses rÃ©vÃ©lations et ses aveux ont Ã©tÃ© repris en substance dans l'acte d'accusation et qu'ils n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© nÃ©gligÃ©s par la Cour ultÃ©rieurement . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã l'isolement pendant un certain temps et aurait Ã©tÃ© pressÃ© par le juge de faire des dÃ©clarations ; il aurait alors fait des dÃ©clarations exagÃ©rÃ©es parce qu'il souhaitait que sa dÃ©tention prenne fin . S'il est revenu sur ses aveux, ce serait parce qu'il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©Ã§u de se retrouver en prison et cela ne pourrait Ãªtre retenu contre lui en raison de son mauvais Ã©tat mental . V . EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© pour la premiÃ©re fois le 26 mars 1970 comme soupÃ§onnÃ© d'espionnage pour le compte d'un service de renseignements de la RÃ©publique dÃ©mocratique allemande depuis 1962 . Le 25 aoÃ¹t 1975, le parquet fÃ©dÃ©ral a dÃ©posÃ© l'acte
d'accusation contre le requÃ©rant auprÃ¨s de la cour d'appel de BaviÃ©re, qui agissait comme juridiction de premiÃ©re instance . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© par cette cour le 19 mai 1976 . Entre-temps, il avait Ã©tÃ© mis en libertÃ©, le 9 novembre 1971 . II avait toutefois Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã nouveau du 22 octobre au 26 novembre 1973, puis arrÃ©tÃ© une nouvelle fois le 29 septembre 1975 . 2 . La Commission a invitÃ© le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã© prÃ©senter ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© des griefs du requÃ©rant au titre des articles 6Â§ 1 et 5 Â§ 3 de la Convention concernant la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soutenu que la procÃ©dure dirigÃ©e contre la requÃ©rant ne s'est pas indÃ¹ment prolongÃ©e . En particulier, la premiÃ¨re pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©raisonnablement longue eu Ã©gard Ã l'Ã©tendue exceptionnelle de l'instruction et aux procÃ©dÃ©s dilatoires du requÃ©rant . La seconde arrestation ne serait imputable qu'au propre comportement de celui-ci et la troisiÃ©me arrestation serait justifiÃ©e par le grand danger qu'il ne prit la fuite . En outre, selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le droit du requÃ©rant Ã ce qu'il soit statuÃ© sur les accusations dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable n'a pas Ã©tÃ© violÃ© Ã cause de la durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention, et il n'y aurait pas eu d'autre retard dÃ©raisonnable . La Gouvernement a mis en relief les difficultÃ©s considÃ©rables de l'instruction dues en particulier Ã l'importance peu commune de l'affaire et aux manosuvres trompeuses et systÃ©matiques du requÃ©rant . Il a soulignÃ© que la procÃ©dure a finalement Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e avec une grande diligence .
Le Gouvernement a conclu que les griefs Ã©taient manifestment mal fondÃ©s . 3 . La Commission a prooÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen prÃ©liminaire des renseignements et arguments qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©s par les parties concernant les griefs du requÃ©rant au titre des articles 6 Â§ 1 et 5Â§ 3 de la Convention . 4 . En apprÃ©ciant la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure, la Commission doit tenir compte de la pÃ©riode du 26 mars 1970 au 19 mai 1976, soit plus de six ans . La Commission n'est pas convaincue que les informations fournies sur la procAdure d'instruction montrent que cette durÃ©e ait Ã©tÃ© raisonnable, au sens de l'article 6 Â§ 1 de la Convention . Au vu des Ã©lÃ©ments dont elle dispose, la Commission n'en arrive donc pas Ã la conclusion que la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et irrecevable de ce chef . Concernant l'article 5 Â§ 3, la Commission estime que la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention ne peut Ãªtre apprÃ©ciÃ©e sÃ©parÃ©ment de l'ensemble de la procÃ©dure . 5 . Par ces motifs et sans prÃ©juger le fond de l'affaire, la Commissio n DECLARE LA RE Q UETE RECEVABLE .
- 147 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 11/12/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page