THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1940 and at present

detained in prison at Hannover.

From his statements and from the documents submitted by him it appears

that on .. September, 1965 he was arrested on suspicion of having

committed robbery and aggravated theft. On .. June, 1966 he was

convicted on the charges of theft by the Regional Court (Landgericht)

at Hannover and sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment. The Court

considered that he had served this sentence by virtue of the period of

his imprisonment on remand since .. September, 1965.

The Applicant was not released from prison, however, as the charges

against him of robbery had been separated from the charges of severe

theft in the trial of .. June, 1966 on the ground that the person

injured by the alleged robbery, a Spaniard, had moved to Spain and was

not likely to return in the near future to give evidence of the offence

committed against him. The Applicant is still awaiting trial on the

former charges.

On .. June, 1966 the Applicant appealed to the Regional Court at

Hannover seeking his release from prison (Haftbeschwerde). On .. July,

1966 this court rejected the appeal on the grounds that there was

sufficient evidence before the investigating judge of the Applicant's

guilt and that the danger that the Applicant might flee (Fluchtgefahr)

still persisted. There was also a probability that the Applicant might

be committed to an insane asylum. The Court further stated that he

could not successfully assert an excessive detention on remand, as 8

months of his detention hitherto existing were counted towards his

sentence. Thus, there was also no necessity ex officio to present his

case to the Court of Appeal for a decision according to Sections 121,

122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) regarding

the continuation of his detention on remand as, after deduction of the

period counted towards his sentence, the 6 months' limit had not been

exceeded.

In pursuance of this request the Applicant informed the Commission that

he lodged a further request with the Regional Court (Landgericht) at

Hannover to have the lawfulness of his detention examined

(Haftprüfung). This was rejected on .. September, 1966. The Court

stated that there was considerable burdening evidence given by his

alleged accomplices and that the danger of flight (Fluchtgefahr)

continued to exist. In particular, the latter was not put aside by

virtue of the fact that he was offered employment on a dairy farm.

On .. September, 1966 the Applicant addressed a letter to the Public

Prosecutor (Staatsanwalt) at Hannover alleging his innocence of the

robbery charge. He requested to be heard as a witness to this effect.

By letter of .. October, 1966 the Public Prosecutor replied that being

an accused he could not be heard as a witness to his own cause.

It further appears that, on .. November, 1966, the Applicant lodged a

request with the Presiding Judge of the First Criminal Chamber of the

Regional Court to fix a date for his trial. The Judge replied by letter

of .. November, 1966 that there could not be any trial until the victim

of the robbery had been examined in Spain and the Court was in

possession of the protocol concerning this examination.

From this statements and from documents submitted by the Applicant it

appears that, on .. November, 1966, the Regional Court (Landgericht)

in Hannover rejected his further application for conditional release

(Haftverschonung). On .. December, 1966 the Applicant appealed

(Beschwerde) against this decision to the Attorney General

(Generalstaatsanwalt) at Celle who apparently referred the matter to

the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at Celle. On .. December, 1966

this Court decided that the Applicant's detention on remand should

continue. The Court explained that its present decision was not an

examination of the lawfulness of the Applicant's detention in

accordance with Section 122, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (ex officio examination after each 3 months' detention on

remand), but a new examination in accordance with Section 121 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure calling for a first such examination within

6 months' detention. The Court reasoned, as had done the Regional Court

before, that the 6 months' period had not started to run until .. June,

1966, the date of the Applicant's conviction and sentence for

aggravated theft.

The Court held that the reasons for the Applicant's detention on remand

still persisted and that he could be expected under the circumstances

to accept the delay arising from the necessity to have a witness for

the prosecution examined in Spain.

The Applicant has not lodged a constitutional appeal

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht). Upon the Secretariat's request for

information whether he had done so, he replied that it probably would

have been rejected as being inadmissible and would have caused a still

greater delay of the proceedings against him.

However, by letters of 16th and 28th February, 1967 the Applicant

informed the Commission that, in the meanwhile, he was convicted

(presumably by the Regional Court at Hannover on the charge of robbery

which had been separated from the charge of aggravated theft in the

trial of .. June, 1966) and sentenced to 4 1/2 years' imprisonment. He

does not indicate the date on which this decision was taken but states

that he appealed (Revision) against the judgment to the Federal Court.

The Applicant complains that in view of the fact that he did not commit

the alleged offenses, he was wrongly arrested and held in prison.

Without referring to any specific articles he alleges generally a

violation of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in respect of the Applicant's complaints relating to the

length of his detention on remand, the Commission has had regard to the

fact that, on .. June, 1966, the Applicant was convicted for aggravated

theft and that his detention on remand from .. September, 1965, up to

that date was taken into account in fixing his sentence;

Whereas therefore, as from .. June, 1966, a new period of detention

pending trial commenced, in respect of the charge preferred against him

for robbery; whereas it appears that, on or about .. February, 1967,

the Applicant was convicted on that charge and that the decision on

appeal is still pending; whereas, consequently, 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 in particular in Article

5 (Art. 5); whereas it follows that the Application 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.