NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 7 Prosecutor’s Office the following day with a view to seeking authorisation for his departure for Finland on Monday, 16 July. On 13 July 1962 Neumeister appeared for a few moments before the Investigating Judge who informed him that he was being placed in detention on remand (Section 176 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 13. On 23 July 1962, the applicant lodged his first appeal against the order of arrest of 12 July 1962. Emphasising that his firm, his home and his family were in Vienna, he stated that there were no grounds for believing in the reality of a danger of flight and that if he had wished to abscond he could easily have done so before. The Judges’ Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna dismissed the appeal on 31 July 1962 for reasons similar to those set out in the order in dispute. In particular it laid great weight on the statements of Rafael which, in its opinion, had definitely worsened Neumeister’s position. The Applicant challenged this decision on 4 August 1962. He maintained that Section 175 (1) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure required a "danger of flight" and not merely a "possibility of flight", that the presence of such a danger must be determined in the light of concrete facts and that the possibility of a heavy sentence was not a sufficient ground to assume danger of flight. It referred to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) of 8 March 1961 (Official Collection of the Decisions of this Court, 1961, pages 80-82). The Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Vienna dismissed the appeal (Beschwerde) on 10 September 1962. While endorsing the reasoning of the Judges’ Chamber, it added that Neumeister knew perfectly well that the charges weighing upon him had become more serious after 12 May 1961, that he must expect a heavy sentence in view of the enormity of the loss caused, and that according to a police report of 12 July 1962 he had carried out preparations for a journey abroad and had not abandoned them although the competent Investigating Judge had expressly refused the necessary authorisation. In these circumstances the Court was of the opinion that a danger of flight must be deemed to exist. 14. Neumeister filed a second request for provisional release on 26 October 1962. While once again endeavouring to prove the absence of a danger of flight, he offered for the first time, as a subsidiary request, a bank guarantee of 200,000 or, at the most, 250,000 schillings (Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The Judges’ Chamber rejected the request on 27 December 1962. Recalling that Neumeister faced a punishment of from five to ten years’ severe imprisonment (Section 203 of the Criminal Code) and that he was answerable for a loss of about 6,750,000 schillings, it took the view that the deposit of security would not be sufficient to dispel the danger of flight and