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.