English Translation

5a 2- Insurances of Martinek believed that the Švarc's efforts, supported by him, to angle his delivery car would be in the interest of the officially authorised group supply of the victims in the Czernin Palace. The contrary finding is based on the information provided by the defendant, Mertinek, who wanted to relieve himself, and on a suspicion of fraud by him, the applicant Bronder, expressed in the customs office's files on the basis of a person's confusion. It is also incorrect to assume that Martinek was not subject to his duties as an official to Martinek as a mere employee of the responsible party. Finally, he had the Svarc's intimidated trading activities checked by the Chief Inspector Wil-helm at the District Council Office in Tabor in the beginning of 1994 and received a reasonable amount of information about Švarc a few days later. For his claims, he offered proof by the Condemned Švare, Customs Councillor Wapenhensch and Chief Inspector Wilhelm. The claim of the applicant is neither self-evident nor appropriate in connection with the earlier evidence, his acquittal or a lesser punishment in the sense of § 359 para.I No.5 StPO. It also does not reveal any sufficient circumstances which would require a review of the case in the ordinary proceedings in 18481.The reopening procedure of the applicant essentially coincides with its admission, which had already been fully recognised in paragraph III(3) of the judgment, in respect of points 34 to 36 of the present judgment. It follows from this that Archis and the rest of the content of the judgment first of all shows that the alleged unwarranted suspicion of the customs office in the investigative files, contrary to the frivolous facts in the reopening application, was not in any of Bifluss' cases for the findings of the main proceedings.It is further apparent that the conviction of the applicant, except on the information of the co-defendant Martinek, on the data of the Co-defeated Svarc /B1.34 of the sentence above/, the statements of the witnesses Graf and Vilhelm /Bl.36 of the judgement line 6 to 12 from above/ on the partial admission of the claimant himself /BI.35 of the decision, lines 3 to 7 and 12 to 15 from above / on the content