NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 25 the Applicant; this is said to be borne out by its previous practice and by Rule 41 (1) (d) of its Rules of Procedure. 14. In the Commission’s view, the procedure in Austria for considering applications for release pending trial lies outside the scope of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention, for it is concerned with the determination neither of a "criminal charge" (unanimous vote) nor of "civil rights and obligations" (seven votes to five). Unlike the Government (see below), the Commission does not think that Article 6 (art. 6) leaves it to the municipal law of each Contracting State to define the words quoted above. However, it does not feel able to interpret them broadly enough to cover the procedure in question. With the intention of explaining its views on the autonomous concept of "civil rights and obligations", it refers in particular to the "travaux préparatoires" on the Convention and its own earlier rulings. The Commission thinks it can be maintained that Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) of the Convention, in stipulating that the lawfulness of detention shall be decided by a court, demands respect for certain fundamental principles. However, it does not find the procedure laid down in Sections 113 and 114 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure to be contrary to that requirement (seven votes to five). The Commission concludes, by eight votes to two with two abstentions, that the proceedings on Neumeister’s release involved no violation of either Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) or Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1). 15. The Commission draws the Court’s attention to the individual opinions - some concurring and some dissenting - expressed in its Report by certain of its members with regard to the various questions that arise in this case. 16. At the hearing of 12 February 1968, the Commission made the following submissions: "May it please the Court: To decide: (1) Whether or not Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention has been violated by the detention of Fritz Neumeister from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964. (2) Whether or not Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention has been violated by the non-completion of the criminal proceedings instituted against Fritz Neumeister as from 21 January 1960 when he was first heard by the Investigating Judge as being suspected of the criminal offences concerned, or from any later date. (3) Whether or not Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) or Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4), or the two provisions combined, have been violated by the procedure followed under Sections 113 and 114 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to appeals lodged by Fritz Neumeister against his detention pending trial." 17. According to the Government the Commission’s opinion, as expressed in its Report, that the Republic of Austria has violated Articles 5