THE FACTS The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows: I.   The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1924 and at present living in Hamburg. The application concerns criminal proceedings in two cases involving multiple charges of fraud - the D. and the R. case. The Commission, by its partial decision of 14 December 1972, declared the application inadmissible, with the exception of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention relating to the length of the criminal proceedings against him before the German authorities in the R. case. The present decision concerns this remaining complaint. II.  In the R. case, the applicant was accused: (1)  of having pretended, or caused representatives of agents of his to pretend, to at least 1,315 indebted persons that the firm of R. and later on, that of PR. would take over their debts and allow them more favourable terms of payment;  of having induced the persons concerned to make out bills of exchange in respect of fees (Gebührenwechsel) and to pay him fees when in reality he only wanted to pass on these persons' instalment payments to their creditors and to ask the latter for more favourable terms of payment: (2)  of having recruited at least 1,024 part-time workers (agents) and made them believe that they were working for a sound business firm, that they could expect good earnings for quite some time and that they would be provided with a sufficient number of addresses of persons interested in taking up a loan or in reorganising their debts, and of having induced them to give security in, as a rule, an amount of DM 300,- which, so he was accused of having alleged, could be set off against the commission or would be repaid. III. The development of the criminal proceedings in this case, from 1963 until 1967, was as follows: (1)  The first charges of fraud were made in July 1963. (2)  On .. October 1963 the Public Prosecutor's Office applied for a preliminary judicial investigation to be opened against the applicant and three other persons;  the investigation was opened on 6 November. (3)  On .. November 1963 the Hamburg business premises of the PR. were searched and a large bulk of business papers and documents were seized. Information was obtained from banks. (4)  On .. December 1963 a warrant was issued for the arrest of the applicant who wanted to travel to South Africa. The applicant was arrested in Zurich on .. December and surrendered to the German authorities on .. December. From .. December 1963 until .. March 1964 he was detention on remand. (5)  In 1964 the investigation was extended to nine further accused. A number of hearings of the accused took place. To clarify the charges of the "security-giving matter", over 1,000 contracts made with the agents concerned were examined. In addition to this, a total of 87 victims who had given such a security were heard in other towns between .. August and .. September 1964. The question was clarified what had become of the security payments (inter alia, transfers to Post Office Bank accounts and bank accounts;  Postal Orders; C.o.D. Payments; cash payments; cheques and bills of exchange.) To clarify the "debt-reorganising business", more than 1,300 debt-reorganising contracts were examined. Here, too, the payments were followed up, and this with banks in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein. (6)  From .. March until .. April 1966 the applicant was again detained on remand. (7)  On .. August 1966 the Investigating Judge, having concluded the preliminary investigation, transmitted to the Public Prosecutor's Office his final report comprising 1,069 pages together with the case-file which, at that time, consisted of, inter alia: 100 principal files, 103 special files 40 folders with correspondence with agents 42 folders containing debt-reorganising cases 83 folders containing further evidence 23 business files about 1,000 filing cards concerning the work and contracts of agents about 500 account-cards of agents 2 folders containing control slips 1 folder containing control envelopes 1 file containing forms 1 plastic wrapper containing forms 18 supplementary files. IV.  After the preliminary investigation the proceedings developed as follows .../10/67 Warrant for the arrest of the accused P. issued by the Public Prosecutor. The police investigations finally ascertained that P. was probably deceased. ../4/68   Instruction of the Public Prosecutor to close the investigation in this case. ../5/68   Application by the accused for being given an oral hearing on the results of the investigation. ../5/68   Application by Rechtsanwalt M., as counsel instructed by X., for an extension by 8 weeks of the time given for pursuing the final report. ../7/68   Final hearing of the accused R. ../8/68   Final hearing of the accused X. ../9/68   ..., on whom the accused G. had relied after the investigations had been concluded, is heard as a witness by the Public Prosecutor. ../10/68  Written pleadings on behalf of the accused R. by his counsel. ../11/68  The indictment is preferred. ../12/68  Rechtsanwalt M. is appointed official counsel for the accused X. after having so far been counsel of x's own choice. ../12/68  Rechtsanwalt M., as counsel for X., applies for an extension of the time for filing a statement until the end of January 1969. ../1/69   Change of competence as a result of a redistribution of work. The case is now dealt with by the 10th Grand Criminal Chamber (Große Strafkammer 10) instead of by the so far competent 1st Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Hamburg. ../1/69   Rechtsanwalt M., a counsel for the accused X., applies for a further extension of time by 8 weeks for filing the statement of defence. The application is granted. ../4/69   The Presiding Judge of the 10th Grand Criminal Chamber enquiries with Rechtsanwalt M. after the date up to when he, Dr. M., requests the extension of time for filing the statement of defence in answer to the public charge. ../6/69   Rechtsanwalt M. applies for a further extension of time by at least 5 months in view of the big volume of files and records in the case. The application is granted. ../7/69   The proceedings against the accused A., B., C., D., E., and F. are discontinued by order of the Court. ../7/69   The proceedings against the accused G. are discontinued by an order of the Court. ../7/69   By an order of the court, the proceedings in the case of the accused H. are provisionally stayed under Article 154 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ../1/70   The Regional Court of Hamburg sets up special chambers for dealing with white collar crime into which category also the proceedings in X.'s case belong. Therefore this case now falls to be dealt with by the newly reformed 16th Grand Criminal Chamber which, in addition to this case, also takes over a number of further criminal proceedings that had so far been dealt with by other chambers. ../7/70   Appointment of one additional official counsel each for the accused R., X. and Y. Rechtsanwalt T. is appointed 2nd official counsel for X. Counsel are informed that the decision of the opening of the trial and an order fixing the trial date will be made in the course of the autumn of 1970 and that it is intended to begin the trial of the three accused R., X., and Y on ... November 1970. ../10/70  Order opening the trial in the case of the accused R., X., and Y. ../11/70  Warrant for the arrest of X. (who had apparently moved to Liechtenstein). ../11/70  Warrant for the arrest of Y. ../11/70  A request is made out for an international search of the accused X. and Y. ../11/70  Y. is arrested in Liechtenstein. ../11/70  Report of the criminal police Hamburg on the measures taken since ... November 1970 in search of the accused X. and Y. In X.'s case an arrest has not yet been possible. (It appears that he fled via Italy and the United Kingdom to Panama.) ../11/70   Beginning of the trial of R. and Y. before the Regional Court of Hamburg. The proceedings against X. are separated from the other proceedings and provisionally discontinued under Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ../12/70  An international search is instituted against X. in several European countries. ../12/70  Rechtsanwalt M. asks for being released from representing X. as official counsel in view of the fact, amongst others, that X. has absconded. ../1/71   Rechtsanwalt M. is released from representing the accused X. as official counsel. ../2/71   X. is apprehended in Trieste/Italy. ../2/71   Request by the Public Prosecutor's Office, Hamburg, to the Public Prosecutor with the Court of Appeal (Corte die Appello) of Trieste for X.'s provisional arrest pending extradition. ../2/71   The Regional Court of Hamburg issues a warrant for X.'s arrest for the purpose of his extradition. ../3/71   The Federal Republic of Germany requests his extradition from Italy. ../3/71   The Federal Republic of Germany requests his extradition from Italy. ../3/71   Judgment in the proceedings against R. and Y. is pronounced by the Regional Court of Hamburg:  R. and Y. are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, the corresponding part out of the total sentence in the case of R. being four years and four and a half years, respectively. The written reasons of the judgment comprise 444 pages. The judgment becomes final in 1972. ../7/71   The Court of Appeal of Trieste accedes to the Federal Republic's request for extradition of .../3/71. ../1/72   Complete change in the composition of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg as a result of the distribution of work for the year 1972. ../2/72   X's appeal (ricorso) from the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trieste of .../7/71 is dismissed by the Court of Cassation (Corte Suprema di Cassazione). ../3/72   Temporary change in the presidency of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg as a result of the establishment of a new Schwurgericht (Criminal Chamber supplemented by lay judges). The judge temporarily acting as presiding judge of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber does so in addition to his activity in another Criminal Chamber. ../4/72   X.'s extradition is granted by the Italian Ministry of Justice and Grace. ../5/72   X. is surrendered to, and received in, the Federal Republic of Germany. ../5/72   A new presiding judge for the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg has been appointed and is taking over. ../5/72   Oral hearing for reviewing the pre-trial detention order against X. by the Regional Court (16th Grand Criminal Chamber). An order is made that his detention shall continue. ../5/72   Clarifying statement made by the Italian Ministry of Justice and Grace concerning the granting of X.'s extradition. ../5/72   X.'s appeal (Beschwerde) from the Regional Court's order of ../5/72   is dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Hamburg. The Court of Appeal states that he is strongly suspected of having committed the offenses concerned, that there is a danger of his absconding and that his continued detention is not out of proportion to the importance of the case and the sentence to be expected. ../7/72   The Court of Appeal reviews X.'s detention, under Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and decides that it shall continue. ../7/72   The Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decides that X.'s constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) against the decision of the Court of Appeal of .../5/72 shall not be accepted for decision on the ground that it does not offer a sufficient prospect of success. ../7/72   X. asks for Frau Rechtsanwältin S. to be appointed official counsel for his defence on the ground of differences with his counsel, Dr. M. and Dr. T. ../8/72   Information from X. that he has cancelled Dr. M.'s brief as counsel of his choice. ../8/72   Rechtsanwalt T. asks to be released from representing X. as official counsel. ../9/72   The Presiding Judge of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber notifies the President of the Regional Court that it is intended to start X.'s trial about the middle of November 1972 and announces that an additional judge and an additional lay judge will be applied for because of the expected duration of the trial of about five months. ../9/72   Rechtsanwalt T.'s appointment as official counsel for X. is revoked and Frau Rechtsanwältin S. is appointed official counsel in his place. ../10/72  The Court of Appeal of Hamburg makes a new order under Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for X.'s continued detention pending trial. ../10/72  Rechtsanwalt W. is appointed additional counsel for the accused X. and a date is fixed by the Presiding Judge of the 16th Grand Chamber of the Regional Court. ../11/72  Beginning of the trial of the accused X. (The case-file now comprises, inter alia, 145 volumes of principal files, 50 witnesses and two experts have been summoned to give evidence.) ../6/73   X. is convicted by the Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg on charges of fraud and sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. The periods which he spent in detention pending extradition (in Switzerland and Italy) or pending trial (in Germany) are counted towards his sentence. The warrant for his arrest is set aside. Both X. and the Public Prosecutor's Office lodge an appeal on points of law (Revision) with the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof). Submissions of the parties I.   The respondent Government submit that the applicant's remaining complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention, concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him in the R. case, is inadmissible: -    for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, and -    in any case, as being manifestly ill-founded and, furthermore, as constituting an abuse of the right of petition. 1.   The Government state that, according to the Federal Court's case-law in criminal matters (judgment of 10 November 1971, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1972, pages 402, et seq.), a violation of Article 6 (1), as alleged in the present case, has to be taken into account in fixing the applicant's sentence. The applicant could raise this issue in the appeal proceedings before the Federal Court. He could furthermore file another constitutional appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court. It follows that he has not yet exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him under German law and that the remainder of his application is therefore inadmissible under Articles 26 and 27 (3) of the Convention. 2.   Alternatively, the Government submit that the remaining complaint is manifestly ill-founded and, moreover, constitutes an abuse of the right of petition within the meaning of Article 27 (2), of the Convention. In the Government's view, the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) in the present case cannot, in the light of the special circumstances of the case, be called unreasonably long. The clarification of the complicated facts, and of the large number of alleged offenses, inevitably took up considerable time. Furthermore, the proceedings were not delayed by the authorities, but by the applicant's escape in 1970 and his subsequent refusal to stand trial. The Government submit in particular: (a)  That the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) of the Convention began on the day of the applicant's arrest in Switzerland on ... December 1963 and that it is still running. (b)  That the criminal proceedings were not delayed. The only reason for the length of the time taken up by the preliminary investigation (1963-1966) was the exceptionally large number of alleged offenses that had to be investigated, and the time consumed by this cannot be said to have been too long. (c)  It was also justified or, respectively, necessary to institute a search for the accused P. after the preliminary investigation was concluded, and to grant a final hearing. As the Public Prosecutor dealing with the case had first to make himself acquainted with the bulk of the material, the time that elapsed between .... August 1966 and ... November 1968, the date when the charge was preferred, must be regarded as being within limits taking into account the entire circumstances of the case. (d)  In 1969 counsel for the applicant was granted several extensions of time of some duration for filing the statement of defence, in answer to the charge. The proceedings were, furthermore, speeded up by the proceedings against several other accused being discontinued. An automatic delay was unavoidable when on ... January 1970 a new Special Chamber for white collar crime at the Regional Court of Hamburg took over these proceedings and certain others. In spite of this, the trial was opened as early as ... October 1970. As the great amount of disputed material had again to be examined in preparation of the decision for opening the trial, the time between the preferment of the charge and the decision on the opening of the trial was not unreasonably long. (e)  The trial in the case of the accused R. and Y. began on ... November 1970. The applicant himself is responsible for the fact that he did not appear at that trial but avoided being tried by absconding. If he had taken part in the trial it would have been possible in the summer of 1971, at the latest, to give judgment with regard to his alleged offenses. He therefore has only himself to blame for the delay of the proceedings caused by his absconding abroad. The period up to ... May 1972, the day when the applicant was surrendered to the Federal Republic of Germany, must therefore be left out of consideration when determining the question whether or not the criminal proceedings took an unreasonably long time. (f)  After ... May 1972 it was not possible to have a new trial for the applicant start at once. The composition of the 16th Grand Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg had been changed on ... January and again on ... May 1972, so that it became necessary once again for the big volume of files and records to be studied and worked through. Apart from this, the official counsels were exchanged on the applicant's request. In view of this situation of fact the new trial of the applicant was not started unreasonably late when it began on ... November 1972. (g)  Taking into account the big volume of the matter and the fact that an expert was challenged during the trial, it cannot be said that the trial proceedings lasted too long. In order to arrive at the truth, the Criminal Chamber had to elucidate the complicated facts thoroughly according to German criminal procedural law. (h)  It follows that there is manifestly no violation of Article 6 (1) and that the applicant's submission alleging such a violation constitutes an abuse of the right of petition, for he himself, by absconding to a foreign country, prevented the criminal proceedings from being terminated at an earlier date. II.  The applicant submits in reply: -    that all domestic remedies have been exhausted in respect of his remaining complaint under Article 6 (1) of the Convention, and -    that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor abusive. 1.   As regards the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant recalls that the Federal Constitutional Court, on ... July 1972, decided not to accept for decision his constitutional appeal concerning his continued detention pending trial on the ground that it did not offer a sufficient prospect of success. He concludes from this decision that any new domestic remedy alleging a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention would prove equally ineffective. 2.   As regards the question whether his remaining complaint is manifestly ill-founded or abusive, the applicant considers that the criminal proceedings against him in the R. case "could and should have been finished a long time ago" and that he himself is not responsible for "the length of the case lasting for ten years". The applicant submits in particular: (a)  That the proceedings should have been accelerated during his detention in 1963/64 and thereafter. (b)  That it was unnecessary "to hear thousands of complaints as witnesses". The case revealed a certain system and, consequently, only "a restricted number of complaints could and should have been considered". (c)  That he was repeatedly released pending trial. While his release in 1964 had been made dependent on a cash security of 25,000 DM, the release two years later was ordered without any security. This showed that the authorities "were quite prepared to take their own responsibility in dealing with the warrant of arrest". They therefore cannot blame him for absconding to a foreign country. THE LAW I.   The respondent Government submit in the first place that the applicant's remaining complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him in the R. case, is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention). The applicant contests this view. The Commission does not find it necessary to determine this issue, which raises complicated questions under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, as it follows from the reasons stated under II below that the application must in any case be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. II.  Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides that, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a hearing "within a reasonable time". The Commission, in its examination of the applicant's complaint relating to the length of the proceedings in the R. case, has first ascertained the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) and then evaluated the concrete circumstances of the case, taking into account not only its complexity and the manner in which it was handled by the national authorities, but also the applicant's own conduct. 1.   In its determination of the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1), the Commission has had regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Wemhoff, Neumeister" and "Ringeisen" Cases (see European Court of Human Rights "Wemhoff" case and "Neumeister" case, judgments of 27 June 1968, and "Ringeisen" case, judgment of 16 July 1971), and to its own opinion in the "Soltikow" Case (see Report of 3 February 1970) as confirmed by the Committee of Ministers' decision of 19 February 1971 (see Resolution DH (71) 1). In accordance with this case-law, the period to be taken into consideration under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) begins with the date on which a person is charged. The term "charge" cannot, on the one hand, be construed in the terms of the domestic law of any of the Contracting States but must be interpreted independently. On the other hand, it may be necessary to have regard to the whole system and practice of criminal procedure of the State against which the application is directed in order to interpret and thus delimit the notion of "charge" for the purpose of applying that notion to the facts of a particular case under consideration (see the Commission's opinion in the Soltikow Case). Three possible starting dates emerge from the above case-law: the date of the applicant's arrest, the date of the opening of preliminary investigations against him, or the date of the filing of the indictment. It is difficult, therefore, to identify the particular moment in time when an applicant before the Commission can be said to have been charged in the context of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1). The Commission considers that, in order to resolve that question in the present case, it must revert to the principle which it established in the Neumeister Case to the effect that "the relevant stage is that at which the situation of the person concerned has been substantially affected as a result of the suspicion against him" (see the Commission's Report of 27 May 1966, page 81). This situation has been held to exist in Austrian cases where preliminary judicial investigation had been opened against the applicant. The Commission considers that the situation under German law is in this respect comparable to that under Austrian law. It notes that, in the present case, a preliminary judicial investigation was opened against the applicant and three further suspects on ... November 1963. The Commission concludes that the period to be considered under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) began in this case on the above date. 2.   The closing date of the said period is normally that on which criminal charges are finally determined by an acquittal or a conviction, even if this determination is made on appeal by a court which pronounces upon the merits of the charge, and the Commission refers in this regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and to its case-law (see for example the "Wemhoff", "Neumeister" and "Ringeisen" Cases.) The same result can be achieved where the criminal proceedings terminate otherwise, e.g. by their discontinuance, and in this respect the Commission refers to its decision on the admissibility of Application No. 4550/70, Graf Soltikow against the Federal Republic of Germany (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 38, p. 123). The charges against the applicant were determined at first instance on ... June 1973 and he appealed. However, there are special reasons for not adopting either this or any later date as the close of the period under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) in the present case. The Commission observes that an order opening the trial in the case of the applicant and two further accused was made on ... October 1970. The applicant however, did not appear for trial but apparently fled from Liechtenstein , where he was then residing, via Italy and the United Kingdom to Panama. An international search warrant was issued against him in several European countries and he was finally apprehended in Italy on ... February 1971. The Federal Republic of Germany requested his extradition and the Court of Appeal of Trieste, on ... July 1971, acceded to the request. The applicant's appeal from this decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on ... February  1972. On ... April the Italian Ministry of Justice and Grace granted his extradition and on ... May 1972 he was surrendered to, and received in, the Federal Republic of Germany. In the meanwhile, the trial of the other two accused had taken place and judgment had been given by the Regional Court of Hamburg on ... March 1971. A new trial had to be held for the applicant;  it opened on ... November 1972. It follows that the applicant himself, by his escape and refusal to appear in court, prevented his own trial from starting in 1970 and that, as a result of his own conduct, his own trial began two years later than that of his co-accused. The Commission finds that it must take this element into consideration when determining, in the present case, the relevant period under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. It therefore concludes that this period lasted from ... November 1963 (opening of the preliminary judicial investigation) until ... October 1970 (order opening the trial), that is to say, for approximately seven years. The Commission has next considered the question whether this period exceeded the limits of a "reasonable time" as laid down in Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1). In approaching this question, it has had regard to the principles which have been developed by the European Court of Human Rights particularly in its judgments of 27 June 1968 in the "Wemhoff" and "Neumeister" Cases, and which have been summarised in the Commission's Report of 19 March 1970, in the "Ringeisen" Case as confirmed in the Court's judgment of 16 July 1971 in that case. According to these principles, the question whether or not the applicant, in the determination of the criminal charges against him in the R. case, has had a hearing "within a reasonable time" in the sense of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be decided by an evaluation of the concrete circumstances of the case, in particular: the complexity of the case as a whole, the manner in which it was handled by the prosecuting authorities and courts, and the applicant's own conduct. The complexity of the case against the applicant and his co-accused is manifest, given the number of acts done, witnesses to be heard, and countries in which enquiries had to be made. The Commission finds that there were a number of factors causing delay in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused from 1963 to 1970, including the redistribution of judicial work on two occasions. However, it is plain that the delays, and requests for extensions of time, by counsel for the applicant were an inseparable and major cause of the whole delay. Furthermore, they were either necessary, given the complexity of the case or, on the other hand, they were only designed to postpone trial, a motive indicated by the two flights abroad of the applicant in 1963 and in 1970, at a time when his trial was to take place, and his persistent refusal, until 1972, to return to Germany to stand trial. In either case the Commission, in considering the entire period between 1963 and 1970, concludes that the applicant's remaining complaint that reasonable time was exceeded under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE