THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as presented by the applicant, may be summarised

as follows:

I.   The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1924 and at present

detained in prison in Hamburg. He is involved in two cases of alleged

fraud and usury which occurred in 1963/64 and 1970 respectively.

1. The first case concerns a firm in Hamburg, which undertook to assist

debtors in the liquidation of their debts. The offenses - fraud and

usury - are alleged to have been committed in 1963 and 1964, involving

some 2,000 victims in 1963 and numerous others in 1964.

In December 1973 the applicant was extradited by Switzerland to the

Federal Republic of Germany. After four months' detention he was

released in 1964. In 1966 he was again arrested and detained for two

months. In 1969 he was permitted to leave the country; he moved to

Liechtenstein.

However, on .. October 1970 a new warrant of arrest was issued against

the applicant and his trial was fixed to open before the Regional Court

(Landgericht) of Hamburg on .. November 1970. The applicant did not

appear at this trial. He states that two co-accused were convicted and

sentenced and that they appealed from the judgment.

The applicant further states that he himself was to be arrested in

Liechtenstein on .. November 1970 but fled via Italy and the United

Kingdom to Panama. On .. November his case was given wide publicity in

the series "XY ungelöst" on the second German television channel. This

programme features unsolved criminal cases. A picture of the applicant

was shown and a reward of 2,000 DM was offered for information leading

to his arrest. The applicant's description was also circulated by

Interpol and on .. February 1971 he was arrested at Trieste in Italy.

2. With regard to the second case of alleged fraud, the applicant

states that, while in Liechtenstein, he was employed by an American

corporation. Early in the 1970 this corporation established a new

company, AG. The German public prosecutor qualified the prospectus

issued by the company as fraudulent and opened a new investigation

against the applicant. It was stated that shares of the AG had been

sold to some 600 people who thereby suffered a damage of altogether

over 1,000,000 DM; the applicant was said to have made a profit of

about 600,000 S.Fr.

II.  On .. March 1971 the Federal Republic of Germany, referring to

a warrant of arrest issued in the R. case by the Regional Court of

Hamburg on .. February and to a further warrant issued in the D. case

by the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Hamburg on .. March, requested

the applicant's extradition from Italy. On .. July 1971 the Court of

Appeal (Corte di Appello) of Trieste acceded to this request. The

applicant's appeal (ricorso) was dismissed by the Court of Cassation

(Corte Suprema di Cassazione) on .. February 1972 and in May 1972 he

was extradited to Germany.

III. From the numerous documents submitted by him, it appears that the

applicant has addressed himself to various courts and other authorities

in the Federal Republic of Germany. In particular:

1. While in Italy, he made a petition to the Regional Court of Hamburg

for the warrant of .. February 1971 to be set aside, but this was

refused by the Regional Court on .. January and, on appeal, by the

Court of Appeal on .. March 1972. His third appeal to the Court of

Appeal was dismissed on .. April 1972.

Early in May 1972 the applicant was extradited from Italy and the

Regional Court decided on .. May that his detention in the Federal

Republic of Germany should continue. His appeal from this decision was

dismissed by the Court of Appeal on .. May 1972. The Court of Appeal

stated that the applicant was strongly suspected of having committed

the offenses concerned, that there was a danger of his absconding and

that his continued detention would not be out of proportion to the

importance of the case and the sentence to be expected. The Federal

Constitutional Court decided on .. July 1972 that the applicant's

constitutional appeal should not be accepted for decision on the ground

that it did not offer a sufficient prospect of success.

2. While in Italy, the applicant also made various petitions for the

warrant of arrest of .. March 1971 (issued by the District Court of

Hamburg) to be set aside. These were refused:

- by the Regional Court on .. November 1971 and, on appeal, by the

  Court of Appeal on .. January 1972;

- by the Regional Court on .. February and, on appeal, by the Court of

  Appeal on .. March 1972; and

- by the Regional Court on .. March 1972.

Both before and after his extradition from Italy, the applicant

requested the District Court to examine the grounds of his detention

(Haftprüfung). The Court refused these petitions on .. April and .. May

1972, stating that the applicant was not detained under the Court's

warrant of arrest. The applicant's appeal from the decision of .. May

was dismissed by the Regional Court on .. June 1973.

IV.  With regard to the television broadcast of .. November 1970

(mentioned under I, 1 above), the applicant has submitted a statement

dated .. September 1971 by Rechtsanwalt H., a lawyer practising in

Hamburg, showing the possibility of instituting civil proceedings

before the Regional Court in order to obtain compensation for the

damage suffered as a result of such publicity. The applicant has not

availed himself of this remedy.

Complaints

The applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 5, 6 (2), 7, 8, 9, 10

and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 4.

He complains in particular:

- that the television broadcast of .. November 1970 violated his right

  to a fair trial and adversely affected his family life;

- that the Federal Republic of Germany unlawfully requested his

  extradition from Italy and that he was wrongly detained in, and

  extradited from, Italy in 1972;

- that his present detention pending trial in Germany was unlawful,

  there being no legal basis for a continuation of the criminal

  proceedings against him;

- that, during his detention, he was escorted to his home in Hamburg

  in handcuffs and that he had to go to the toilet handcuffed to a

  guard and to compile the documents which his wife then mailed to the

  Commission;

- that the criminal proceedings against him in the R. case, which were

  opened in 1963, are still pending.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains that the television broadcast of ..

November 1970 violated his right to a fair hearing and adversely

affected his family life.

The Commission does not find it necessary to examine whether the rights

and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention can under the Convention be

held responsible for this broadcast. It notes that the question of the

responsibility of another Contracting State for broadcasts emanating

from its territory was raised, but not pursued, in Application No.

3059/67 (X against the United Kingdom, Collection of Decisions, Vol.

28, 89-93).

The Commission finds that, even if one assumes such a responsibility

in the present case, the complaint is inadmissible for non-exhaustion

of domestic remedies.

It is true that Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention secures to

everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to a fair hearing

and further that, under Article 8 (1) (Art. 8-1), everyone has the

right to respect for his family life. However, the Commission is not

required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant

disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision as, under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter

after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the

generally recognised rules of international law.

In this respect the Commission notes that the applicant has submitted

a statement dated .. September 1971 by Rechtsanwalt H., a lawyer

practising in Hamburg, showing the possibility of instituting civil

proceedings before the Regional Court in order to obtain compensation

for the damage suffered as a result of a television broadcast such as

that of .. November 1970. The applicant has not availed himself of this

remedy.

The Commission further observes that, following such proceedings, the

applicant could have lodged a constitutional appeal with the Federal

Constitutional Court concerning the said broadcast. He failed to do

this, however, and has, therefore, not exhausted the remedies available

to him under German law.

Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence

of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from

exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this

respect be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2.   The applicant further complains that the Federal Republic of

Germany unlawfully requested his extradition from Italy and that he was

wrongly extradited by the Italian authorities in 1972.

The Commission has examined this complaint, insofar as it is directed

against the Federal Republic of Germany, under Article 5 (1) (Art. 5-1)

of the Convention which reads as follows:

"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall

be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in

accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

.... (f)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person .... against whom

action is taken with a view to deportation or extradition."

The Commission considers that this provision implicitly accepts

extradition. An examination of this complaint, insofar as it is

directed against the Federal Republic of Germany, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention.

3.   Insofar as the applicant's complaint concerning his extradition

is directed against Italy, the Commission observes that this State has

signed and ratified the Convention but has not yet recognised the

competence of the Commission to receive applications lodged by

individuals under Article 25 (Art. 25). (1)  The rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention can therefore not be invoked before the

Commission by a private individual with regard to Italy. It follows

that the application is in this respect incompatible ratione personae

with the provisions of the Convention in the sense of Article 27 (2)

(Art. 27-2).

4.   The same ground of inadmissibility applies to the applicant's

complaint concerning his detention pending deportation in Italy.

5.   The applicant further complains of his detention as such, pending

trial in the Federal Republic of Germany and of the length of this

detention. The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 5

(1) and (3) (Art. 5-1, 5-3) of the Convention.

It is true that paragraph (1) of Article 5 (Art. 5-1) secures to

everyone the right to liberty and security of person. However, under

sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), a person may be detained "for the

purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on

reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is

reasonably considered necessary to prevent this ... fleeing after

having done so". The Commission, having regard both to the applicant's

own statements and to the court decisions submitted by him, is

satisfied that these conditions are fulfilled as regards his present

detention pending trial.

Under paragraph 3 of Article 5 (Art. 5-3), a person detained in

accordance with paragraph 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) is entitled to trial

within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. The Commission

notes that the applicant is detained in the R. case, that he was

detained in that case in 1963/64 for four months and in 1966 for two

months, and that his present detention pending trial in the same case,

which began in May 9172, has so far lasted seven months.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)  Italy made such a declaration on 20 June 1973 with effect from

1 August 1973.

___________________________________________________________________

The Commission first observes in this connection that, as the German

authorities can not be held liable under the Convention for the

applicant's detention in Italy pending his extradition, the period so

spent by him cannot be taken into consideration by the Commission under

Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3).

The Commission next finds that the period of seven months which he has

so far spent in detention is Germany following his extradition from

Italy, whether considered separately or together with the former

periods of detention pending trial in 1963/64 and 1966, is not

unreasonably long in the circumstances of this case. In accordance with

the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights ("Neumeister",

Case and "Wemhoff" Case, judgments of 27 June 1968, The Law, paragraphs

5 and 12 respectively) the Commission has in this connection had regard

to the decisions of the domestic courts, and the applicant's pleadings,

in the proceedings concerning his present detention - insofar as these

have been submitted by the Commission. In concludes from the decision

given by the Court of Appeal of Hamburg on .. May 1972 that the

applicant is strongly suspected of having committed the offenses

concerned, that there is a danger of his absconding, and that the

length of his present detention is so far not out of proportion to the

importance of the case and to the sentence to be expected in the case

of conviction. The Commission is satisfied that these considerations

are relevant and sufficient to justify the applicant's present

detention under Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3).

6.   The applicant further complains that, during his detention, he

was escorted to his home in Hamburg in handcuffs and that he had to go

to the toilet handcuffed to a guard and to compile the documents which

his wife then mailed to the Commission.

It is true that Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention prohibits inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment. However, the Commission is not

required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant

disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision as, under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter

after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the

generally recognised rules of international law.

In the present case the applicant failed to seize the competent German

courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, and has, therefore,

not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law. Moreover,

an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any

special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from

exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this

respect be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

The Commission further observes that, in any case, the above security

measures were clearly not so serious as to amount to inhuman or

degrading treatment in the sense of Article 3 (Art. 3). It refers in

this connection to its decision on the admissibility of Application No.

2291/64 (X. v. Austria, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 24, pages 20,

31).

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article.

It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

7.   The applicant finally complains of the length of the criminal

proceedings against him in the R. case. The Commission has examined

this complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which

provides that, in the determination of any criminal charge against him,

everyone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time. It notes

that the proceedings concerned were apparently opened in 1963 and that

they are not yet concluded. Although a certain delay was caused by the

applicant's escape in 1970 and his subsequent refusal to return to the

Federal Republic of Germany to stand trial, it is not in the present

state of the file clear whether his right under Article 6 (1)

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention to be heard within a reasonable time has

been respected by the German authorities, in particular, as regards the

period of seven years between 1963 and 1970.

The Commission finds, therefore, that an examination of the case as it

has been submitted by the applicant does not give the information

required for determining the question of the admissibility of this

complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule

45, 3 b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this

complaint to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and to

invite the Government to submits its written observations on this

question.

For these reasons the Commission:

1. decides to give notice to the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the

criminal proceedings against him in the R. case and to invite the

Government to submit its written observations on the admissibility of

this complaint;

2. decides in the meanwhile to adjourn its further examination of this

complaint;

3. declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.