The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter
referred to as 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 Dieter Haase against the Federal
Republic of Germany (No. 7412/76);
Whereas on 13 October 1977, the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers 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 European
Court of Human Rights, in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
convention;
Whereas in his application lodged on 22 January 1976, the applicant
complained of various aspects of his detention on remand, and the
allegedly unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him,
in particular the preliminary judicial investigation, submitting that
Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), and Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1) of the convention had been violated and that, at almost all
relevant stages of the domestic proceedings, his defence had been
hampered because his representatives had not been afforded sufficient
access to the file;
Whereas the Commission on 12 December 1976 declared the application
admissible and in its report, adopted on 12 July 1977, it considered
the complexity of the case, the handling of the case by the
authorities, the conduct of the applicant, whether his defence was
interfered with in that his lawyers lacked sufficient access to the
case files and whether the applicant's detention was unjustified or
excessive;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed the opinion by 8 votes
against 5 that however regrettable the length of the criminal
proceedings against the applicant may have been, there was no
violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the convention on
account of the length of the proceedings, by 10 votes against 3 that
there was no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.b (art. 6-3-b) of the
convention and by 10 votes against 3 that there was no violation of
Article 5, paragraphs 1.c and 3 (art. 5-1-c, art. 5-3) of the
convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the convention;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1) 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.