CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 18 avril 1978

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  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.