40 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT addition, the provision in question also lays down that such remedies must be determined "speedily" (the French text uses the somewhat less expressive term "à bref délai"). This clearly indicates what the main concern must be in this matter. Full written proceedings or an oral hearing of the parties in the examination of such remedies would be a source of delay which it is important to avoid in this field. 25. For these reasons the Court finds that the procedure followed by the Austrian courts in examining the Applicant’s requests for provisional release has contravened neither Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) nor Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT Holds unanimously that there has been a breach of Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) of the Convention; Holds by five votes to two that there has been no breach of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings against the Applicant; Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) or Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention as to the procedure followed in examining the requests for provisional release lodged by F. Neumeister; and Decides, accordingly, that the facts of the case disclose, on one of the three points at issue, a breach by the Republic of Austria of its obligations arising from the Convention. Done in French and in English, the French text being authentic, at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this twenty-seventh day of June, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight. H. ROLIN President M.-A. EISSEN Deputy Registrar on behalf of the Registrar