THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and when last heard

of, on 17th May, 1965, detained in prison at Münster/Westfalia. At that

time he stated that he hoped to be released on .. September, 1965.

He states that, on .. December, 1960, he was convicted by the Regional

Court (Landgericht) at Detmold on charges of receiving stolen goods

(Hehlerei). Upon appeal (Revision) presumably to the Federal Court

(Bundesgerichtshof) he was acquitted for lack of evidence against him

(Mangel an Beweisen). He had spent 2 1/2 months in detention on remand

for which, however, he had received no compensation. He states that,

at the time, he had lodged an appeal to have his detention examined

(Haftbeschwerde) which had been dismissed.

It appears that, on .. November, 1963, he was again convicted by the

Regional Court at Detmold on charges of fraud and sentenced to 21

months' imprisonment. His appeal (Revision), presumably to the Federal

Court, was dismissed on a date not indicated in the Application. His

detention pending trial, and his detention pending appeal in so far as

it exceeded three months, were credited towards his sentence.

On .. March, 1964, the Applicant applied to the Regional Court of

Detmold for compensation for the detention on remand suffered in 1960.

This was rejected on .. April, 1964, and again on .. May, 1964. On ..

June, 1964, he lodged a petition with the Regional Court at Detmold

requesting that his previous detention on remand be credited toward his

present sentence by way of a pardon (im Gnadenwege). The Court rejected

his petition on .. August, 1964 on the ground that his acquittal in

1960 was simply for lack of evidence against him, the suspicion that

he had committed the offence still persisting. The Applicant appealed

(Beschwerde) to the Minister of Justice of North Rhine-Westfalia on ..

August, 1964. The appeal was rejected on .. October, 1964, on the

ground that neither his previous conviction nor the criminal

proceedings against him in 1960 had prevented him from committing

further offenses. This decision was communicated to the Applicant by

letter of .. October, 1964, from the Pardon Division of the Regional

Court (Gnadenstelle bei dem Landgericht) at Detmold.

He complains that the refusal to give him credit for the detention on

remand suffered in 1960 was unlawful. He alleges that the reasoning of

the court and of the Pardon Division violated the Convention in that

it referred to the criminal proceedings in 1960 in which he had been

acquitted. This, the Applicant concludes, resulted in a non-recognition

of the principle that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved

guilty according to law. Consequently, he further concludes, his

detention on remand subjected him to degrading treatment. He further

complains that the detention on remand itself had been unlawful.

Since, meanwhile, he hopes to have been released from prison he

requests to be released from payment of the costs incurred in his trial

in 1963.

He alleges a violation of Articles 3, 5 paragraph (3) and 6 paragraph

(2) of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas the Applicant has based his claim for compensation for his

detention on remand in 1960 on Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3), of

the Convention which refers to Article 5, paragraph (1) (c)

(Art. 5-1-c), and consequently also on Article 5, paragraph (5)

(Art. 5-5);

Whereas the Commission does not find that Article 5, paragraph (3)

(Art. 5-3), is relevant in the present case which only concerns an

allegation of wrongful detention on remand and a consequent claim for

compensation; whereas it is to be observed, first, that under Article

5, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), the detention of a

person "effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent

legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence"

does not constitute a violation of the Convention, provided that the

procedure prescribed by law has been respected; whereas the Applicant's

allegations do not disclose any element which would cause the

Commission to have any doubts on the question whether or not the above

conditions have been met in the present case; whereas the Commission,

having also considered ex officio the Applicant's complaint in the

light of Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4), of the Convention, finds

that there is no appearance of any violation of that provision;

whereas, consequently, the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (5)

(Art. 5-5), do not apply to this case as only a person "who has been

the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions

of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation";

whereas, therefore, 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 this part of the Application is also 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 in the fixing of

his sentence, he was refused credit for his detention on remand in

1960, which was in connection with different proceedings against him,

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, paragraph

(1) (Art. 25-1), 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 no right to obtain credit for

detention on remand is as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission

refers to its previous decision, No. 1699/62, X. v. Austria; 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), of the Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of alleged inhuman and

degrading treatment and also the court's failure to observe the

principle of presumption of innocence in deciding on his requests to

obtain credit for his detention on remand, 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 Articles 3

and 6 (Art. 3, 6); 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.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.