4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Salzburg. 5.  In the autumn of 1989 the Salzburg Tax Office (Finanzamt) started investigations into a large-scale fraud relating to the “WEB/IMMAG” group. 6.  On 20 December 1989, the applicant, member of the board of directors and managerial director of one of the concerned companies, wrote a letter to the Salzburg Tax Office and requested that his income tax declaration for the year 1987 be corrected in that the losses declared therein be cancelled. 7.  Thereupon, the Salzburg Tax Office, on 27 December 1989, informed the applicant that he was suspected of tax evasion and invited him to submit his comments in writing. On 23 January 1990 it further informed the applicant that his letter of 20 December 1989 was considered as “self-accusation” (Selbstanzeige). On 16 February 1990 the applicant transferred the amount of 1,973.07 euros (EUR) for evaded taxes to the Tax Office. 8.  In the following years the Tax Office conducted extensive inspections into the WEB/IMMAG group together with the Tax Office for the Investigations of Large Enterprises in the course of which investigation reports were published and administrative criminal fiscal proceedings were instituted against a multitude of persons. 9.  On 19 August 1993 the Salzburg Tax Office heard the applicant. Subsequently, it submitted criminal information against the applicant to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) concerning suspicions of tax evasion. The Public Prosecutor's Office received this information on 15 March 1994, together with criminal information against four other suspects related to the WEB/IMMAG group. 10.  Subsequently, on 4 May 1994 the investigating judge at the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht) instituted criminal investigations (Voruntersuchungen) against the applicant and other accused. It further included these proceedings into already pending proceedings against other accused. This decision was confirmed by the Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Court on 1 February 1995. 11.  Having received supplementary criminal information from the Tax Office, the investigating judge, in April 1995, summoned the applicant and the other accused to six hearings scheduled in May and June 1995 respectively. The applicant's request that the criminal investigations be stayed was dismissed. On 30 April 1996 the investigating judge forwarded the file to the Public Prosecutor's Office. 12.  On 13 January 1998 the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and three co-accused. It charged the applicant with evasion of income tax and participation in evasion of taxes of the WEB/IMMAG group in 1987 and 1988. Proceedings against other accused were separated from those of the applicant's. The applicant's appeals against these decisions remained unsuccessful. 13.  On 16 May, 4 July, 22 August and 3 October 2000 the Regional Court examined the case. At the end of 2000 the presiding judge of the chamber dealing with the applicant's case retired and a new presiding judge was appointed in July 2001. 14.  Having held further hearings on 18 and 19 February 2002, the Regional Court convicted the applicant pursuant to section 33 of the Code of Tax Offences (Finanzstrafgesetz) of income tax evasion in the amount of 1,973.07 EUR and partly attempted evasion of other taxes in the total amount of 1,074,891.60 EUR. It sentenced him to a fine of 300,000 EUR of which the payment of 200,000 EUR was suspended with a probation period. When fixing the sentence the court took into account the applicant's good conduct until the offences and since then, that the applicant had paid the evaded taxes, the fact that the offences had partly only been attempted and the length of the proceedings. The court noted that these circumstances as well as the scale of the unlawfulness of the offences justified that the sentence amounted only to one sixth of the maximum penalty (Höchststrafe). The court finally noted that the length of the proceedings and the other mitigating circumstances justified the suspension of part of the sentence. 15.  During the trial the applicant requested to hear N.G. as a witness due to the fact that, when assessing the losses relevant for his and others' income taxes, he had only followed a system which N.G. had developed and instructed him to use. The court rejected the request and noted inter alia that even assuming this to be correct, there was no reason why the applicant should not bear responsibility. Referring to the fact that the applicant had completed university studies it did not accept the applicant's arguments as to his limited knowledge in this matter. 16.  On 8 May 2002 the written version of the judgment was served on the applicant's counsel. The applicant thereupon, on 5 June 2002, filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). On 16 September 2003 the Public Prosecutor's Office submitted its observations. The applicant filed further comments on 9 October 2003. 17.  On 12 February 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's plea of nullity and transmitted the applicant's appeal to the Linz Court of Appeal. It confirmed inter alia the Regional Court's refusal to hear N.G. Having regard to all other evidence against the applicant obtained during the trial including his own statements, and the fact that N.G. had denied any concrete knowledge about the case at issue when heard as a suspect in his own criminal proceedings before absconding to Germany, it found that the applicant had not given any convincing reason why hearing N.G. again was relevant. This judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 10 March 2004. 18.  On 19 August 2004 the Linz Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.