CASE OF STAUDER AND GABL v. AUSTRIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
4. The first applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rinschnach. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Linz. 5. In 1997 the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht Wels, “the Regional Court”) instituted preliminary investigations (Vorerhebungen) against the two applicants and several other persons on account of the suspicion of aggravated fraud (schwerer gewerbsmässiger Betrug) by having set up and managed an internationally operated gambling system which was based on a pyramid scheme. 6. On 19 January 1999 the Regional Court decided that the proceedings against the applicants were to be separated from those of the co-suspects to avoid delays. 7. On 9 December 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant (Steckbrief) in respect of the first applicant. He was in detention on remand from 26 to 27 May 1998. 8. On 18 February 2008 the first applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act (Fristsetzungsantrag). The Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht, “the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor. 9. On 2 May 2013 the Regional Court acquitted the first applicant of all charges. The decision was served on his counsel on 15 October 2013. 10. On 18 April 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the second applicant. He was in detention on remand from 22 May 1997 until 6 August 1999. 11. On 12 April 2002 the preliminary investigations against the second applicant were closed and the file was transferred to the Wels Public Prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft, “the Public Prosecutor”) for further processing. However, no indictment was brought against him. 12. On 4 December 2007 the second applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor. 13. On 2 April 2010 the Public Prosecutor brought an indictment against the second applicant. The second applicant lodged an appeal against the indictment and a motion requesting the discontinuation of the proceedings. On 28 February 2011 the Court of Appeal rejected the indictment, but did not discontinue the proceedings. 14. On 13 October 2011 the Public Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against the second applicant.