THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1934 and at present detained

in prison at C..

From his statements and documents submitted by the applicant it appears

that he was arrested on .. August 1967 on the suspicion of having

committed theft. The warrant of arrest was issued by the District Court

(Amtsgericht) at C..

1. On .. April 1968 the applicant was convicted by the Regional Court

(Landgericht) at C. of three counts of thefts as being a recidivist and

sentenced to six and a half years' severe imprisonment. The applicant

lodged an appeal and on .. January 1969, the Federal Court

(Bundesgerichtshof) quashed the Regional Court's decision and remanded

the case back for an new trial on the ground that the trial court had

had a witness examined at his home and only read out his deposition at

the trial instead of hearing him personally.

It appears that after the second trial the Regional Court on .. May

1969 convicted the applicant of two counts of theft and sentenced him

to four years' severe imprisonment.

Another appeal lodged by the applicant was on .. March 1970 rejected

by the Federal Court as being unfounded.

2. Since his arrest on .. August 1967 the applicant has in vain tried

to be released. The Regional Court and the Court of Appeal at C.

examined his case on several occasions either ex officio or at the

request or appeals of the applicant and always found that there were

sufficient reasons to keep him in detention on remand

(Untersuchungshaft).

The applicant submitted copies of decisions of the Regional Court dated

.. October and .. November 1967, .. May, .. June and .. September 1969

and of the Court of Appeal dated .. November 1967, .. February 1968,

.. June 1969 and .. October 1969. The courts always held that there was

well-founded suspicion that the applicant was guilty and that he might

abscond after release. They pointed out that before his arrest he had

neither a permanent job nor domicile, that he has no family, and that

his numerous prior convictions never prevented him for a long time from

committing new offenses.

By letter of .. August 1969 the applicant lodged a constitutional

appeal against the decision of the C. Court of Appeal dated .. June

1969. It appears that this appeal was rejected as being lodged out of

time. In a letter from the C. Regional Court dated .. October 1969 the

applicant was informed that his letter containing the constitutional

appeal had, after control by a judge, been forwarded to the

Constitutional Court on .. August 1969. The Court pointed out that the

.. August was a Friday and that, consequently, the applicant's letter

could not have reached the Regional Court before Monday, .. August when

the delay for the constitutional appeal had already expired.

The applicant lodged another constitutional appeal against the last

decision of the Court of Appeal refusing his release, dated .. October

1969. This appeal was declared inadmissible as being clearly

ill-founded, by three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court on ..

December 1969.

3. The applicant laid criminal charges against three officials of the

criminal police, the Public Prosecutor and the judges who were sitting

at his first trial. It appears that all proceedings instituted upon the

applicant's charges were discontinued.

The applicant petitioned the Assembly of N.-W. complaining of his

conviction and sentence. By letter of .. April 1969 he was informed

that his petition had been rejected.

4. On .. May 1969 the applicant smashed to pieces the furniture in his

cell. As a consequence the Regional Court at the request of the prison

governor, imposed on him a penalty of seven days' arrest after having

invited the applicant to submit his observations. The applicant

appealed against this decision, which was given on .. July 1969. The

Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at C. rejected the appeal on ..

August 1969 stating that although the applicant had acted in a state

of excitement he was, according to a medical expert opinion,

nevertheless responsible for his behaviour since he was capable of

making a distinction between objects belonging to the prison and his

own objects which he did not destroy.

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the Court of

Appeal's decision. The appeal was declared inadmissible as being

clearly ill-founded, by three judges of the Federal Constitutional

Court on .. October 1969.

On July 1969 the Regional Court rejected the objections raised by the

applicant against his prison sentence and refused to suspend the

execution of this penalty. The Court stated that the applicant's right

to be heard had been respected as he was given the opportunity to

submit his observations in writing. Insofar as the applicant had

complained that he had not been informed of the result of the medical

expert opinion before .. July 1969, the Court stated that the applicant

was informed of this expert opinion by the order of .. July 1969 but

had not submitted any valid objections against it in his grounds of

appeal.

5. (a)  The applicant first complains of his conviction and sentence.

He alleges that before his trial he was not completely informed by the

police and the Public Prosecutor of the result of the investigation and

therefore he could not properly prepare his defence. He further alleges

that he was not given the text of the Penal Code and other Acts which

he needed to prepare his defence. Apparently he was referred to his

defence counsel. Finally, he alleges that his conviction was, inter

alia, based on the evidence given by a criminal. He points out that at

his second trial his request to replace his defence counsel and the

Public Prosecutor was rejected.

(b)  As regards the penalty imposed on him for his conduct in prison

the applicant complains that he was not heard orally by the Court and

was not given the opportunity to comment on the expert opinion. He

states that he had lost his mind after he had heard on the radio that

an innocent person had been convicted of murder and had served 20 years

in prison before it was found out that he had been wrongly convicted.

He pretends that under these circumstances, he could not have been held

responsible for what he did in his frenzy.

(c)  The applicant finally complains of the length of his detention on

remand. He alleges that the police made a false report in order to

obtain a court order remanding him to prison.

Alleging a violation of Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 (1) of the Convention,

he requests the Commission to declare his application admissible.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to his

conviction and sentence an examination of the case as it has been

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

any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in

the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant;

Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the

Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of

the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention;

Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application

alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic

courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might

have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms

limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the

Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59, (X. v. Belgium -

Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria - Collection of

Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a

violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas 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.

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the Regional Court

at C. imposed on him a prison sentence of seven days arrest as a

penalty for his misconduct in prison although he was given no adequate

opportunity to justify his action, it is to be observed that the

Convention under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the

rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and

whereas, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25), only the alleged violation of

one of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the

subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental

organisation or group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the

Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right to a fair hearing as

guaranteed by Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not apply

to disciplinary proceedings as such proceedings are not concerned with

the determination of criminal charges;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), thereof;

Whereas in regard to the applicant's complaint relating to the length

of his detention pending trial and his subsequent appeal, such

complaint is to be considered in relation to the requirement that a

detained person is entitled to trial "within a reasonable time" under

Article 5 (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention and, in accordance with the

jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights ("Wemhoff" case, judgement

of 23 June 1968, p. 23), the period which is relevant in this respect

is only that from the applicant's arrest on .. August 1967 until his

conviction at first instance by the C. Regional Court on .. April

1968;

Whereas, therefore, a distinction should be made between this period

and the period from the latter date until .. March 1970 when the

Federal Court rejected his second appeal and his conviction became

therefore final;

Whereas the Commission finds that the first period of approximately

eight months was unreasonably long in view of the reasons given by the

Regional Court rejecting the applicant's requests for release, namely

that, if released, he might abscond as in particular he had no family

ties, employment or place of residence;

Whereas the second period has been considered ex officio by the

Commission in relation to the requirement that a person is entitled,

in the determination of a criminal charge, to a hearing "within a

reasonable time" under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

whereas the second period also does not, in the opinion of the

Commission, appear to be excessively long;

Whereas the Federal Court quashed the applicant's first conviction and

referred the case back for another trial and these proceedings

inevitably caused some delay; whereas, furthermore, during this period

there were numerous proceedings at all instances relating to the

applicant's request for release and there were also disciplinary

proceedings against him at all instances; whereas presumably the

conduct of these other simultaneous proceedings must have caused

further delay in the conduct of the main proceedings complained of;

Whereas it follows that the application in these respects is manifestly

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

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

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE