AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 24530/94

                      by Stefco VODENICAROV

                      against the Slovak Republic

     The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE, President

           MM.   J.-C. GEUS

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H. DANELIUS

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 P. LORENZEN

                 E. BIELIUNAS

                 E.A. ALKEMA

                 A. ARABADJIEV

           Ms.   M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 27 September 1993

by Mr. Stefco Vodenicarov against the Slovak Republic and registered

on 4 July 1994 under file No. 24530/94;

     Having regard to:

-    the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

     the Commission;

-    the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

     22 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

     applicant on 22 April 1996 and 12 August 1996;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1946.  He is a

driver and resides in Hlohovec, the Slovak Republic.

     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

A.   The particular circumstances of the case

     In 1992 the applicant received a temporary job in Germany through

the Trnava Labour Office (Okresny úrad práce).  He was dismissed.  The

applicant claimed damages from the Labour Office.  He was informed that

any claim he had should be lodged with the appropriate German court.

     The applicant was involved in several conflicts with his

colleagues and neighbours.  The police and the local authority refused

to investigate the applicant's complaints, and the co-operative which

owns the block of flats where the applicant lives refused to arrange

for damages to be paid to the applicant.

     According to the applicant, on 16 February 1994 his wife was

assaulted by Mrs. D., a neighbour.  He pursued the neighbour but she

managed to escape.  The applicant and his wife unsuccessfully tried to

have criminal proceedings instituted against Mrs. D.

     On 24 May 1994 the Piestany Local Office (Obvodny úrad) found the

applicant guilty of a minor offence against civic propriety in that on

16 February 1994 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D. in front of their

house.  The applicant was reprimanded and charged the fees of the

proceedings.  On 14 July 1994 the Trnava District Office (Okresny úrad)

upheld this decision.

     In the meantime, on 30 June 1994 the applicant had been heard in

the police station.  He read a statement of Mrs. T. according to which

on 16 February 1994 he had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance

of their house, a medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from

16 February 1994 and a petition signed by eleven neighbours submitting

that on 7 April 1993 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D.

     On 30 September 1994 the Trnava District Prosecutor (Okresny

prokurátor) charged the applicant with assault causing bodily harm on

the ground that on 16 February 1994 he had several times hit Mrs. D.

at the door of her flat.

     On 12 October 1994 the Trnava District Court (Okresny súd) issued

a sentence order (trestny rozkaz) by which the applicant was

conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment.  On 31 October

1994 he was ordered to pay damages to Mrs. D. He challenged both

orders.  Subsequently, the sentence order was cancelled and a hearing

was ordered.  Mrs. D. joined the criminal proceedings with a claim for

damages.

     On 5 December 1994 a hearing was held.  However, the applicant

behaved noisily, insulted the participants and refused to obey the

judge.  He had to be removed and the hearing was adjourned.

     On 12 January 1995 the President of the Trnava District Court

requested a transfer of the case to another court as it was probable

that the applicant would be charged with contempt of court.  The

Bratislava Regional Court (Krajsky súd) dismissed the request as the

District Court should have proceeded pursuant to Sections 66 and 204

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).

     A further hearing was held on 21 February 1995 before a single

judge at the Trnava District Court.  Before it began the applicant had

shouted at Mrs. D. and refused to enter the dock, using rude

expressions.  Since he did not respect the warnings, the judge ordered

his removal pursuant to Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The hearing was held in the applicant's absence.  His statement from

the preliminary proceedings was read out.

      The applicant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.  He

was conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment and ordered

to pay damages to Mrs. D.  The court relied on the evidence of Mrs. D.,

on the statement of Mrs. T. and on that of Mr. H. who accompanied

Mrs. D. to hospital.

     On 2 March 1995 the applicant appealed against this judgment.

He referred to the documents before the court and claimed that

Mrs. D.'s submissions as to when and how the accident had occurred were

not consistent.  He pointed out, inter alia, that according to the

prosecution he had attacked Mrs. D. at the door of her flat which is

situated above the applicant's first floor flat.  However, according

to the first instance judgment the offence was committed at the main

entrance of the house, i.e. on the ground floor.  The applicant argued

that the first instance court had ignored his request to hear other

neighbours as witnesses.

     On 30 March 1995, the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the

appeal.  The hearing was held in the applicant's absence.  The Court

ordered the applicant to be removed pursuant to Section 204 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure as he had refused to enter the dock, made

comments without having been given the floor and ignored the warnings

of the President of the Chamber (Predseda senátu).  The applicant's

wife attended the hearing but was not allowed to address the Court.

     On 12 May 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office (Úrad

vysetrovania) charged the applicant with contempt of court which he was

alleged to have committed on 5 December 1994.

     On 16 May 1995 the Trnava District Court ordered a psychiatric

examination of the applicant.  The applicant submitted a certificate

from a Bulgarian doctor and refused to be examined by appointed experts

in an out-patient department.

     On 5 and 7 June 1995 the applicant sought redress with the

Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd) challenging the unfairness of the

criminal proceedings.  On 17 July 1995 he was informed that the

Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to alter or quash the decisions

of general courts or to interfere with their jurisdiction.  He was

further informed that the Constitutional Court cannot examine whether

the counts of the prosecution were lawful.

     In the meantime, on 11 July 1995, the Trnava District Court

ordered the applicant to be observed in mental hospital pursuant to

Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant

domestic law).  On 12 July 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office

appointed two experts.  The applicant received both decisions on

14 July 1995, and on 15 July 1995 he challenged them.  On 17 July 1995

the mental hospital summoned him for 20 July 1995.

     In the morning of 19 July 1995 the applicant was handcuffed and

escorted by the police to a mental hospital. No warrant was presented.

The applicant was confined in the hospital until 18 August 1995.  From

11 to 13 August 1995 he was granted leave.

     On 27 July 1995 the Trnava District Prosecutor rejected the

applicant's complaint against the Investigation Office's decision of

12 July 1995.

     On 28 July 1995 the applicant's wife informed the General

Prosecutor (Generálny prokurátor) that on 19 July 1995 the applicant

had been confined in the mental hospital although he had appealed

against the Trnava District Court's order of 11 July 1995 as well as

the Trnava Investigation Office's order of 12 July 1995.  She claimed

that the applicant's placement in the mental hospital was illegal.

     On 17 August 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the

applicant's complaint against the Trnava District Court's order of

11 July 1995.  The applicant was not notified.

     By letter of 30 August 1995, served on the applicant's wife on

10 September 1995, the General Prosecutor informed the applicant's wife

that her complaint had been referred, for reason of competence, to the

Bratislava Regional Prosecutor (Krajsky prokurátor).

     The same day, the prosecution for contempt of court was stayed

with reference to experts' conclusion that the applicant's personality

suffered from a permanent disorder which had prevented him from

controlling his behaviour before the Trnava District Court during the

hearing of 5 December 1994.

     On 5 September 1995 the applicant lodged a complaint against the

decision to stay the proceedings.  He challenged the experts'

conclusion and claimed damages.

     By letter of 21 September 1995 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor

informed the applicant's wife that her complaint was sent, for reason

of competence, to the Trnava District Prosecutor.

B.   The relevant domestic law

     The following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

relevant in the applicant's case.

     Pursuant to Section 66 para. 1 the President of a court's chamber

can impose a fine of up to 50,000 crowns on persons who disturb

proceedings notwithstanding that they have been warned, or who offend

the court or who disobey, without having offered a sufficient apology,

orders issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

     According to Section 204, the President of a court's chamber can

order that persons who disturb order be removed from the court room.

The removal of the accused can be ordered only by a chamber's decision,

for such period as is absolutely necessary and after prior warning.

After the accused has been allowed to re-enter the court room the

President of the chamber shall inform him or her of the substance of

the proceedings held in his or her absence so that he or she can make

a comment.

     Under Section 314(a) para. 1 if a case concerns an offence

punishable with not more than five years' imprisonment, the proceedings

are led by a single judge.  Section 314(b) para. 1 vests in a single

judge the same rights and obligations as has a court chamber and its

President.

      Section 116 para. 1 provides for appointment, upon a written

order by the court, of two psychiatric experts when there is a need to

examine the mental health of an accused.

     Pursuant to para. 2, if the mental health of an accused cannot

be examined in another way, the court can order that he or she be

observed in an institution.  Such an order can be issued in preliminary

proceedings by the judge upon the proposal of the public prosecutor.

The order can be challenged by a complaint which has suspensive effect.

     According to Section 90 para. 2, the accused can be brought also

without a prior summons, if it is necessary for the purposes of

criminal proceedings, particularly, where the accused is in hiding or

has no permanent address.

     Section 36 para. 1 (a) provides that an accused shall be

represented by a lawyer at the stage of preliminary proceedings if,

inter alia, he or she is being observed in an institution pursuant to

Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

     According to Section 167, the accused has the right to submit a

petition, at any time during the investigation, to the public

prosecutor that any wrong procedure of an investigator be brought in

order as appropriate.  Such petition, to which no statute of limitation

applies, must be immediately submitted to the public prosecutor who

shall deal with the matter without any delay, and inform the petitioner

about the findings of the review.

     Section 117 provides that observation of mental health should not

last longer than two months; by that time a medical report must be

submitted.  If justified by the findings of an expert witness, this

time can be prolonged by the court, or, during pre-trial proceedings,

by the public prosecutor or the investigator with consent of the

prosecutor, for a maximum period of one month. Such prolongation is

subject to an admissible complaint.

     According to Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act

No. 60/1965 as amended, a public prosecutor must immediately release

any person in unlawful detention.

     According to Article 130 para. 3, the Constitutional Court may

commence proceedings upon the "podnet" presented by an individual or

a corporation claiming to have rights violated.

     Article 17 paras. 1 and 2 provides that "personal liberty of

every individual shall be guaranteed and no one shall be prosecuted or

deprived of liberty unless for reasons and by methods set by law".

According to paragraph 7, "a psychological examination of the person

charged with an offence is permissible only on a written court order".

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not

arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered as a consequence

of his dismissal in Germany.  He further complains that the Slovak

authorities refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor

offences and offences against his family and that the co-operative did

not arrange for paying him damages.

     The applicant also alleges that the criminal proceedings leading

to his conviction of assault and the detention in mental hospital were

unlawful and violated his human rights.  In particular, he claims that

he was convicted in his absence, that the Bratislava Regional Court

refused his request to hear further witnesses and did not consider all

his submissions in his appeal.  He considers that he has been

discriminated against on the ground of his nationality.  In substance,

he alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4, Article 6 para. 1

and Article 14 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 27 September 1993 and

registered on 4 July 1994.

     On 17 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

     The Government's written observations were submitted on

22 March 1996.  The applicant replied on 22 April 1996 and supplemented

his submissions on 12 August 1996.

     On 16 April 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.

By letter of 30 August 1996 the applicant informed the Secretariat that

he wished to present his case himself.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not

arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered by his dismissal

in Germany.

     The Commission observes that the applicant was employed by a

private German company.  The Trnava Labour Office was only the

intermediary and cannot be responsible for the applicant's dismissal

and, consequently, for any damage suffered.  Moreover, the Labour

Office informed the applicant that any claim should be lodged with the

appropriate German court.

     In these circumstances, the Commission finds that this situation

does not involve any responsibility of the Slovak authorities.

     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be

declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.   The applicant further complains that the Slovak authorities

refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor offences and

offences against his family and that the co-operative owning the house

in which he lives did not arrange for paying damages to him.

     Insofar as the applicant complains about the refusal of the

Slovak authorities to prosecute certain persons, the Commission recalls

that the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal

proceedings instituted against third persons (cf. No. 9777/82, Dec.

14.7.83, D.R. 34, p. 158; No. 23997/94, Dec. 15.5.95, D.R. 81, p. 102).

Therefore, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention.

     Insofar as the applicant complains against the co-operative, the

Commission recalls that under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention,

it may only receive an application from a person, non-governmental

organisation or group of individuals where the applicant alleges a

violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms

set out in the Convention (cf. No. 12327/86, Dec. 11.10.88, D.R. 58,

p. 85).   The Commission may not, therefore, receive applications

directed against private individuals or private non-state subjects,

such as the co-operative in question.  Accordingly, this complaint is

incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of application must be rejected

according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.   The applicant also alleges that he was convicted in his absence.

In substance, he alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

     "1.   In the determination ... of any criminal charge against

     him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

     independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...

     ...

     3.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

     minimum rights:

     ...

     c.    to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of

     his own choosing ...;

     ..."

     The Government hold that all requirements contained in Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention had been complied with.

     They submit that the applicant was able to defend his case in the

public hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court, make motions of

additional evidence, comment on the facts presented and make other

motions.  He deprived himself of this right because he disturbed the

proceedings in an unacceptable manner.  He was removed from the court

room in accordance with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

as he failed to behave properly, despite previous warnings about

possible consequences given by the President of the Chamber.  Moreover,

before the final statement, he was called back to the court room but

he had already left the Court building.

     The applicant contests the Government's observations. He disputes

the Government's allegation that the President of the Chamber at the

Bratislava Regional Court on 30 March 1995 asked him to return to the

court room in order to give his comments on the proceedings, because

it was the President himself who ordered police officers to take him

out of the court building. He also submits that during the hearing of

30 March 1995 at the Bratislava Regional Court, the President refused

to give his wife the floor, although she asked for it twice. In the

record of the public hearing there is no mention of it.

     The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 6

paras. 1 and 3 (c) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-c) of the Convention without the

further observations of both parties.

4.   The applicant claims that the courts refused to hear eleven

neighbours who had signed the petition against him and that the

Bratislava Regional Court did not consider all his submissions

presented in his appeal.  He invokes, in substance, Article 6 paras. 1

and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) of the Convention, which provides:

     "1.   In the determination ... of any criminal charge against

     him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

     independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...

     ...

     3.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

     minimum rights:

     ...

     d.    to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to

     obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf

     under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

     ..."

     The Government submit that the Regional Court did consider all

the allegations contained in the applicant's appeal and thereupon made

the conclusion as shown in the reasons attached to its decision.  The

Court did not consider it necessary to call new witnesses; the

applicant's appeal did not contain any motion requesting the

examination of persons from other flats who had signed the petition

against him.  Neither the evidence of these persons, nor their petition

was relevant to the offence which the applicant had been convicted of,

and it was not necessary to examine further witnesses:  the Regional

Court could have either overruled the decision of the Trnava District

Court and transferred the matter for retrial in the original court

where such presentation of all necessary evidence would have been made

upon which a new decision would have been announced, or it could have

examined the evidence on its own motion.

     The applicant maintains that the Bratislava Regional Court did

not examine all the arguments given in the appeal and did not deal with

them.  He submits that on 27 March 1995 he personally asked the judge

to summon the witnesses, but the judge refused to do so.  In the

applicant's view, the Bratislava Regional Court as well as the Trnava

District Court, the prosecutor and the police, adopted a superficial,

irresponsible, biased attitude to the case and repeatedly violated

Slovak laws and the Convention.

     The Commission recalls that the rules governing the admissibility

of evidence are in the first place a matter for domestic courts.  The

Commission's task, under the Convention, is to ascertain whether the

proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence

was taken, were fair (cf. Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom

judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 4

and Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C,

p. 56, para. 43).

     In the present case, the Commission notes that the neighbours'

petition concerned the incident of 7 April 1993 and not that of

16 February 1994.  Besides, it is not clear whether the petition

constituted an item of evidence on which the first instance Court based

the applicant's conviction because only the Regional Court mentioned

it in its judgment as a part of the case file.

     In any event, the applicant read the petition on 30 June 1994 at

the police station where he had the opportunity to discuss it.

Afterwards, he submitted his written observations.

     Above all, the courts based their judgments on the applicant's

statement from the preliminary proceedings, on the evidence of Mrs. D.,

on the statement of Mrs. T., according to which on 16 February 1994 the

applicant had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance of their

house, on that of Mr. H., who accompanied Mrs. D. to hospital, and on

the medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from 16 February 1994.

     In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the fact that

the courts refused to hear further witnesses proposed by the applicant

did not deprive him of a fair trial. In addition, the Commission

considers that there is no appearance that the appeal proceedings

before the Bratislava Regional Court were otherwise unfair.

     It follows that this part of application is manifestly ill-

founded and must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.   The applicant claims that his detention in a mental hospital was

illegal and arbitrary. In substance, he alleges a violation of

Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention.

     The Government object that the applicant did not exhaust all

domestic remedies.  He could have, under Section 167 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law), submitted a petition

to a public prosecutor immediately after his placement in the mental

hospital, seeking remedy for the wrong procedure that may have

occurred. The public prosecutor would have applied the procedure laid

down in Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act No. 60/1965

(see relevant domestic law).  In the Government's view, there is no

doubt that a public prosecutor would have ordered the release of the

applicant from the mental hospital as the applicant had been placed

there prior to an effective judicial decision.  Such order would have

resulted not only in the applicant's release but it would have entitled

him to recover damages for the wrong procedure applied by the

investigator.

     The Government note that the public prosecutor could consider

this matter even now.  Accordingly, the applicant still has a chance

to lodge such a petition which may have a significant impact on the

recovery of damages.  The Government further submit that there would

have been no order issued for the applicant's observation in mental

hospital, had he not failed to communicate with the appointed medical

experts and undergo an out-patient examination.  Moreover, the medical

findings of the applicant's mental health resulted in the stay of his

prosecution and, as soon as a medical report had been presented, the

applicant was released from the hospital.

     The Government also submit that the applicant could, and still

can, file a "podnet" to the Constitutional Court under Article 130

para. 3 of the Constitution (see relevant domestic law) and claim that,

in breach of his constitutional right, he was deprived of personal

liberty guaranteed by Article 17 paras. 1 and 7 of the Constitution

(see relevant domestic law).  A ruling of the Constitutional Court that

the applicant's personal liberty has been violated would give rise to

a right to recover damages.

     The applicant claims that all remedies have been exhausted in his

case.

     As regards the merits, the Government claim that the applicant's

placement in the mental hospital was compatible with Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  On 19 July 1995 he was brought to the

medical institution by the investigator who, having received a decision

of the Trnava District Court which had not yet become effective,

ordered the applicant to be taken to the hospital because his previous

conduct made it unlikely that he would appear voluntarily.  The

examination of his mental health was required for the purposes of

criminal proceedings.  In addition, the investigating office believed

that the applicant was insane at the time of the commission of the

crime, a circumstance constituting a ground for the stay of the

prosecution.

     The Government state that in bringing the applicant to the mental

hospital, the investigator applied Section 90 para. 2 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).  The summons was

delivered to the applicant on 20 July 1995 by a head of the medical

staff of the hospital, who was one of the two experts appointed to give

evidence based on the results of the examination of the applicant's

mental health. He delivered the summons with regard to his medical

schedule and was informed about the procedure taken by the office of

investigation.  The Government specify that a medical summons is not

a decision made within criminal proceedings, but a routine doctor-

patient communication.  Therefore, the Government contend that the time

difference between the factual escorting of the applicant to the

hospital, i.e. 19 July 1995, and the medical summons issued by the head

of medical staff, i.e. 20 July 1995, is irrelevant.

     The Government, referring to the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp

v. Belgium case (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A

no. 12), note that the decision on medical observation in the mental

hospital was made directly by the Court complying with the conditions

under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.  They point out

that the observation of mental health is, in any event, limited by time

according to Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see

relevant domestic law).  Moreover, the applicant could, at any time

during this period, have requested the public prosecutor to protect his

rights, if he believed his rights had not been respected.  He did not

make such a request.

     With regard to the absence of the applicant's representative

during his placement in the hospital, the Government submit that under

Section 36 para. 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any person

who has been placed in a medical institution for mental observation has

the right to be represented by counsel from the moment of his placement

in the mental hospital regardless of whether the person agreed with the

legal representation or not.  The applicant had the right to choose his

mandatory counsel.  The Government observe that no mandatory counsel

was appointed, but if he had insisted, he could have been represented

by counsel of his choice.  With regard to his assets, he was very

likely to obtain free legal aid.  In addition, the applicant neither

objected to the absence of mandatory representation nor did he request

a lawyer of his choice.

     The Government further maintain that the requirement of mandatory

counsel is not a condition required by law for placement of a person

in a mental hospital, and the right to mandatory counsel is not

guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

     The applicant submits that the Slovak authorities had no right

whatsoever to order his examination on an out-patient basis or any

other examination and to take him  by force from home, to "kidnap him

in handcuffs and to deliberately place him into a mental hospital with

the only objective - to cover up more effectively the genocides against

foreign nationals and minorities".  He claims that during his stay in

hospital no one advised him of his right to have a lawyer, not even

when he was forcibly taken away from his home in handcuffs and brought

to the hospital.

     The applicant also contests the Government's submission that his

complaint against the ruling of the Court of 11 July 1995 was filed on

18 July 1995 and that he did not protest against his placement in the

hospital at the domestic level.  He did protest, but unsuccessfully.

     The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 5 paras.

1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention without the further

observations of both parties.

6.   Finally, the applicant considers that he has been discriminated

against on the ground of his nationality.  He invokes, in substance,

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

     The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention prohibits treating differently, without any objective and

reasonable justification, persons in "relevantly" similar situations

(cf. Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991,

Series A no. 192, p. 19, para. 60).

     However, the applicant does not show that another person in a

"relevantly" similar situation was treated differently from the

applicant.

     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission,

     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the applicant's complaints that he could not

     defend himself in person in the criminal proceedings in which he

     was involved, that his detention in mental hospital was not

     decided in a correct procedure and that he was not entitled to

     take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention in the

     mental hospital could be decided speedily by a court,

     unanimously,

     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

   M.-T. SCHOEPFER                              G.H. THUNE

      Secretary                                  President

to the Second Chamber                      of the Second Chamber