12 NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT verringert). However it considered that a guarantee of one million schillings was not sufficient to eliminate the danger of flight. On this point it emphasised that Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the amount of bail depends not only on the circumstances of the detainee and on the financial situation of the person providing the security, but also on the consequences of the offence. For these reasons, the Judges’ Chamber ordered Neumeister’s provisional release against security of two million schillings (either in cash or in the form of a bank guarantee) and the voluntary deposit (freiwillige Hinterlegung) of his passport with the Court. On 21 January 1964, Dr. Stern lodged, on behalf of Neumeister, an appeal designed to reduce the amount of security stipulated to one million schillings. The substance of his argument was that under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the consequences of an offence should be taken into consideration only after due allowance had been made for the circumstances of the detainee and the financial situation of the guarantor. From this he concluded that in no case should the courts demand a guarantee in excess of the means of the Applicant (Gesuchssteller), with the result that they might, if they so wished, prevent provisional release in a case where the loss was substantial. The decision in dispute was partially altered by that of 4 February 1964. After deciding that the appeal concerned solely the amount of the security required, the Vienna Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion as the Judges’ Chamber, to wit that a sum of one million schillings was too small, regard being had to the loss entailed by the acts in respect of which Neumeister was accused. It added that the Applicant most probably possessed far greater assets than the amount offered as bail, thanks to the profit he had made from these same acts. It also observed that he had not specifically claimed that his means would be exhausted by his having to give bail of one million schillings. The Court stated however that it did not have the necessary documents or information available to enable it to consider the amount of bail fixed by the Judges’ Chamber. It therefore remitted the case to the Judges’ Chamber emphasising that it was incumbent upon the latter, in the light of a detailed examination of Neumeister’s circumstances and of the financial situation of the guarantors he could name to fix the bail between the limits of one and two million schillings. In a report dated 16 March 1964, drawn up at the request of the Judges’ Chamber, the Economic Police of Vienna expressed the opinion that Neumeister was quite unable to obtain two million schillings. This opinion was based on a number of documents from which it appeared that the Scherzinger firm was hardly in a healthy financial position and on the fact that Maria Neumeister stated that she could procure a guarantee of five hundred thousand schillings. The Judges’ Chamber of the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna reached its decision on 31 March 1964, that is, two weeks after the preferment of the