NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA JUDGMENT 37 B. The question whether the proceedings against Neumeister lasted beyond the reasonable time laid down in Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) of the Convention 16. The Commission has expressed the opinion that it is competent to consider, even ex officio, whether the facts referred to it in an application disclose violations of the Convention other than those of which the application complains. This is certainly the case, and the same is true of the Court, as has already been held in the judgment of 1st July 1961 on the merits of the Lawless case (Publications of the Court, Series A, 1960-61, page 60, para. 40). It is however doubtful whether the question arose in the present case, since Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) was expressly mentioned in the document filed by the Applicant in July 1963 (statement of the facts, paras. 28 and 30). In any event, as the whole of the proceedings against Neumeister since he was charged has been referred to it, the Court is of opinion that it must examine, as the Commission has done, whether or not the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1). 17. The first paragraph of Article 6 (art. 6-1) provides that "in the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ... tribunal ...". 18. The period to be taken into consideration for verifying whether this provision has been observed necessarily begins with the day on which a person is charged, for otherwise it would not be possible to determine the charge, as this word is understood within the meaning of the Convention. The Court notes that Neumeister was charged on 23 February 1961. 19. Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1), furthermore, indicates as the final point, the judgment determining the charge; this may be a decision given by an appeal court when such a court pronounces upon the merits of the charge. In the present case there has not yet been a judgment on the merits. Neumeister appeared before the trial judge on 09 November 1964, but a decision given on 18 June 1965 called for further measures of investigation, and the trial was reopened on 4 December 1967. It goes without saying that none of these dates may be accepted as the end of the period to which Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1) applies. 20. That more than seven years have already elapsed since the laying of charges without any determination of them having yet been made in a judgment convicting or acquitting the accused, certainly indicates an exceptionally long period which in most cases should be considered as exceeding the reasonable time laid down in Article 6 (1) (art. 6-1). Moreover, an examination of the table by the Austrian Government of the activities of the Investigating Judge between 12 July 1962 and the close of the investigation on 4 November 1963 (Appendix IV of the Commission’s Report), gives rise to serious disquiet. Not only was there during those fifteen months, as the Court has already noted (para. 8), no