AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 28976/95

                      by Marek BUDZISZ

                      against Germany

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY, President

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs.  M. HION

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 22 August 1995 by

Marek BUDZISZ against Germany and registered on 26 October 1995 under

file No. 28976/95;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant, born in 1960, is a Polish national and resident

in Poznan, Poland.  When lodging his application he was detained at the

Moabit Prison in Berlin.  In the proceedings before the Commission, he

is represented by Mr. B.F. Müller, a lawyer practising in Hamburg.

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

summarised as follows.

     In August 1989 preliminary investigations were started against

persons unknown on the suspicion of aggravated robbery.  In the course

of the proceedings, the victims of the robbery and other witnesses were

heard and several suspects were questioned and detained on remand.  In

September 1989 the suspicion arose that the applicant had been involved

in the offence at issue and investigations were commenced against him.

     On 28 September 1989 the Berlin Tiergarten District Court

(Amtsgericht) issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the

suspicion of having acted as an accomplice to aggravated robbery and

having caused serious bodily harm.  The District Court, having regard

to the evidence given by several witnesses as well as the statements

made by two further suspects, found that there was a strong suspicion

against the applicant and another accomplice that, on 10 August 1989,

they had together with other accomplices robbed two women and stolen

jewellery and had caused bodily harm to the two women as well as to a

further person, Mr. R.  The Court noted in particular that one of the

victims had recognised the applicant as one of the assailants.

     On 1 February 1994, when entering the territory of the Federal

Republic of Germany, the applicant was arrested by the Görlitz frontier

police on the basis of the above arrest warrant.  Mr. Müller, having

been retained by the applicant's family, acted as defence counsel on

the applicant's behalf as from 16 February 1994.  On 23 February 1994

the applicant was transferred to the Moabit Prison in Berlin.  The

applicant eventually also retained Mr. Müller as counsel who, on

4 March 1994, applied to the Berlin District Court to be appointed as

official defence counsel.  On 12 April 1994 the Tiergarten District

Court ordered the applicant's continued detention on remand.

     On 2 May 1994 the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office (Staats-

anwaltschaft) drew up the bill of indictment (Anklageschrift) against

the applicant.  The applicant was charged with having, as an accomplice

of Mr. Z, who was prosecuted in separate proceedings, committed robbery

and having caused bodily harm.  It was alleged that the applicant and

his accomplice Mr. Z. had lain in wait for the witnesses Ms. A.Z. and

Ms. K.Z., owners of a shop dealing in antique jewellery, in the front

of a house in Berlin, where Ms. A.Z. had been residing at the relevant

time, in order to steal their jewellery.  Both accused had hit the two

women causing injuries to their faces.  The witness Mr. R. who had come

to their rescue had been sprayed with teargas.  The accused had then

escaped with a car driven by a further unknown person, taking along two

bags which had only contained used clothes and books.

     On 18 May 1994 the Presiding Judge of the 10th Criminal Chamber

at the Berlin Regional Court granted the defence's request for

appointment of an interpreter.  The Presiding Judge, noting that

Mr. Müller appeared still prepared to act as chosen defence counsel,

found no need to appoint him as official defence counsel.  The date for

the hearing on the question whether to commit the applicant for trial

(Zulassung der Anklage) was fixed for 5 July 1994.  On 20 and on

30 May 1994 Mr. Müller reminded the Regional Court about his request

for appointment as official defence counsel.

     On 1 June 1994 the 10th Criminal Chamber committed the applicant

for trial and ordered his continued detention on remand.  The Chamber,

having regard to the complexity of the case, in particular the

evaluation of evidence after a substantial lapse of time, decided to

sit with three professional judges, including the Presiding Judge, as

well as two lay assessors.  Moreover, the Presiding Judge appointed

Mr. Müller as the applicant's official defence counsel and authorised

him to inspect the files, if necessary through counsel in Berlin acting

as agent, and confirmed the appointment of the interpreter.  He further

fixed 5 July 1994 as the date for the opening of the trial, which was

to be continued on 12 and 22 July, 2 and 12 August 1994.

     On 5 July 1994 the trial opened before the 10th Criminal Chamber,

composed of the Presiding Judge Hi. and Judges Hä. and Ro.  The Chamber

heard the applicant, the Public Prosecutor and several witnesses and

also inspected various documents.  The defence requested to hear

particular witnesses who would testify that the applicant had been in

Poland at the relevant time and presented their written statements on

this point.  At the end of the hearing, the Chamber, having regard to

the result of the preliminary investigations and the taking of evidence

so far, dismissed the applicant's request to discontinue his detention

on remand.  The Chamber found that, on the basis of the investigations

and the taking of evidence so far, there was a strong suspicion that

he had committed the offences in question.  There were no other, more

lenient means to prevent him from absconding.

     According to the applicant, the Presiding Judge, in the course

of the first hearing day, offered him a "deal", i.e. the

discontinuation of the prosecution for robbery and his release from

detention, if he pleaded guilty of forgery of documents, namely

identity papers used as means of evidence in the proceedings against

him.  He had refused, claiming his innocence.  No such incident was

recorded in the trial records.

     The trial continued on 12 and 22 July 1994.  At the hearing of

22 July 1994, the Presiding Judge refused the requests of the defence

that certain passages of a witness statement of 5 July 1994 as well as

the statements made by the Presiding Judge regarding the "deal" be

added to the trial record.  The Presiding Judge found that these

requests were belated.  The applicant's renewed request to be released

from detention on remand was dismissed.

     On 25 July 1994 the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht)

dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 5 July 1994

on his continued detention on remand.  The Court of Appeal noted that

the Regional Court had confirmed the strong suspicion against the

applicant on the basis of both the preliminary investigations and the

result of the taking of evidence at the trial hearing.   The question

whether the hearing of the further witnesses, in particular those

called by the defence, would eventually lead to another conclusion had

to be reserved for the final evaluation of evidence.  Moreover, there

was still a danger of the applicant's absconding as he was possibly

facing a long prison sentence and had no personal or social links in

the Federal Republic of Germany.

     At the further hearing of 2 August 1994, the Presiding Judge,

following deliberations of the Chamber, made a statement to the effect

that the defence's request of 22 July 1994 for the amendment of the

trial records was misleading or even wrong when referring to a "deal".

     On 3 August 1994 the defence challenged the Presiding Judge Hi.

as well as the Judges Hä. and Ro.  According to the defence, Presiding

Judge Hi. had put a trick question to one of the witnesses for the

defence and, when questioning a further witness for the defence, he had

talked about the visit of the Federal President to Poland.  Moreover,

he had postponed the hearing of 2 August 1994 at 5.10 p.m. before the

defence had finished its pleadings.  The two other Judges were biased

for failure to oppose to the Presiding Judge's conduct of the

proceedings.  Moreover, the formulation of a question put by Judge Ro.

to one of the witnesses for the defence was criticised.

     On 11 August 1994 the 10th Criminal Chamber, composed of three

other judges, dismissed this motion.  The Chamber considered that there

were no reasons to doubt the Judges' impartiality.  In particular, the

Presiding Judge had, for reasons of lack of acoustical clarity, put a

further question to the witness concerned in order to remove any

possible uncertainty.  The other defence submissions did not disclose

any appearance of lack of impartiality, either.  As regards the

postponement of the trial hearing, the Chamber noted the official

statements of the three Judges, according to which they had been

conducting hearings since 8.30 a.m. and, due to the midsummer

temperatures, had been exhausted in the late afternoon.  In such

circumstances, it would not have been fair to continue.  Moreover,

according to the trial record, the defence had not been interrupted.

With regard to the two other Judges, the Chamber observed that it was

for the Presiding Judge to decide on the conduct of the hearing and,

in any event, there had been no misconduct on his part.  Furthermore,

Judge Ro. had put questions in order to achieve a comprehensive

testimony, and the criticised formulation had not been objected to at

the trial.

     At the hearing of 12 August 1994 the 10th Criminal Chamber of the

Regional Court rejected the defence's request for an amendment of the

trial record of 2 August 1994 as having been lodged out of time.

Furthermore, the Chamber dismissed the applicant's renewed request for

release from detention on remand.  On 17 August 1994 the Berlin Court

of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal of 2 August 1994 against the

decision of 22 July 1994 on his continued detention on remand on the

ground that it had been superseded by the decision of 12 August 1994.

     At the trial hearing of 22 August 1994, the Chamber dismissed the

defence's request to hear a further witness, who was not present, on

the ground that the facts to be confirmed could be assumed in the

applicant's favour.  The request for an expert opinion on the

applicant's credibility was dismissed on the ground that the Chamber,

on account of its many years of experience, could assess this matter

without expert assistance.  Further requests for the taking of evidence

were rejected on the ground that the witnesses concerned had already

been questioned on the relevant matters.  The request for an expert

opinion on the distance between the applicant's place of residence and

Berlin was dismissed on the ground of the Chamber's own knowledge.  The

taking of some further evidence was refused as being irrelevant or on

the ground that the issues concerned, in particular the applicant's

previous blameless conduct of life, could be assumed in his favour.

     At the end of the trial hearing of 22 August 1994 the applicant

was convicted of aggravated robbery, S. 249 of the Penal Code

(Strafgesetzbuch), and of having caused serious bodily harm, S. 223 a

of the Penal Code.  He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

     As regards the relevant facts, the 10th Criminal Chamber found

that the victims A.Z. and K.Z. were running a shop for antique

jewellery in Berlin Charlottenburg.  Ms. K.Z. had remembered that the

applicant and an unknown person had visited their shop about mid-July

1989 and had looked at the goods exhibited without buying anything.

In the evening of 10 August 1989 both victims returned to Ms. A.Z.'s

apartment, taking as usual the precious jewellery as well as some bags

with old clothes and books as camouflage along.  When the two women

entered the house, the applicant and the separately prosecuted Mr. Z.

had come out of a parked car and followed them into the entrance.

Ms. K.Z. had turned on the stairs and had been able to see the

applicant face to face.  The applicant had then hit her face and

sprayed her with tear gas in order to break her resistance.  In the

meantime Z. had pushed Ms. K.Z. to the ground and had also hit her.

Due to their loud shouts for help, a witness living on the ground floor

had come to the staircase. Thereupon, both offenders had left, taking

the two camouflage bags with them.  At some distance they had entered

a car waiting for them with an unknown driver and had driven away.

     The Chamber rejected the applicant's defence that on

10 August 1989 he had not been in Berlin, but had been engaged on

construction works in Poland.  In evaluating the evidence, the Chamber

considered in particular the statements of three eye-witnesses that

having regard to his age and stature the applicant was possibly the

offender.  One of these witnesses had remembered the registration

number of the "getaway" car, and, in the course of the ensuing

investigations, forged identity papers with the applicant's photograph

had been discovered.  On a table containing this photograph and

photographs of similar appearance persons, the applicant had been

identified by the witnesses A.Z. and K.Z. in September 1989, in the

course of the police investigations.   The Chamber noted that, on the

occasion of a "covert" confrontation with several persons including the

applicant in March 1994, Ms. K.Z. had mentioned the persons numbered

2 or 4 and Ms. A.Z. had pointed at person number 4.  The applicant had

been number 2; number 4 had been a police officer resembling him like

a twin brother.  In any event, at the trial, both witnesses had

recognised the applicant beyond doubt.  Ms. A.Z. had explained that she

had memorised his face because of his brutal attack on her daughter

K.Z.  Ms. K.Z. had indicated that she had seen the applicant face to

face before he had hit her.  As regards her error on the occasion of

the earlier confrontation, she had referred to the striking resemblance

of the two persons and also indicated that she had erroneously thought

that she was being confronted with the accomplice.

     The Chamber regarded the statements made by the witnesses A.Z.

and K.Z. as reliable and credible.  Considering its own knowledge, the

Chamber found the taking of expert evidence on their witness qualities,

their way of giving evidence and their credibility unnecessary.  The

lapse of time between the offence and the trial, the witnesses' way and

capability of giving evidence had been taken into account when

assessing the evidence.

     Assuming that the applicant had been engaged on construction

works between August and September 1989, the Chamber was convinced that

he had interrupted these works and had been in Berlin on

10 August 1989.  The witnesses for the defence had either not been

present at the construction sites at the relevant time, or they had

based their statements confirming the applicant's presence in Poland

on assumptions and not on direct memory.  None of these witnesses had

been able to give details of the applicant's presence or any work

performed by him.

     The applicant was acquitted of the charge of having caused bodily

harm to the detriment of Mr. R., as it could not be established whether

he or his accomplice had sprayed the teargas.

     On 23 August 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law

(Revision) against his conviction.  The written version of the judgment

was served upon the defence on 2 November 1994.  The appeal reasons

were filed on 30 November 1994.  As regards the complaint about bias

on the part of the Presiding Judge Hi. as well as Judges Ro. and Hä.,

the defence referred to the motion of 3 August 1994 and also mentioned

the "deal" allegedly proposed by the Presiding Judge at the hearing of

5 July 1994.  The appeal further criticised the Chamber's taking and

evaluation of evidence.

     In his observations in reply of 24 February 1995, the Federal

Public Prosecutor (Generalbundesanwalt) at the Federal Court of Justice

(Bundesgerichtshof) maintained that the motion of 3 August 1994 had

been correctly dismissed as there were no reasons to doubt the Judges'

impartiality.  The further complaints, in particular about the taking

and evaluation of evidence, were likewise unfounded.

     On 21 March 1995 the Federal Court of Justice amended the

judgment of 22 August 1994 to the effect that the applicant was

convicted of attempted aggravated robbery and of having caused serious

bodily harm.  The remainder of the appeal was dismissed.  Having regard

to its case-law, the Federal Court of Justice found that the offence

in question only constituted an attempt.  However, taking into account

the grievous bodily harm inflicted by the applicant, it could be

excluded that the trial court would have imposed a more lenient

sentence.

     On 29 June 1995 a group of three judges of the Second Chamber of

the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to

entertain the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungs-

beschwerde).

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 (a) and Article 6

of the Convention about his conviction and his ensuing detention as

well as of the criminal proceedings against him.

     The applicant maintains that, from the outset, the proceedings

against him were wrongly conducted.  He submits in particular that  the

10th Criminal Chamber only decided to commit him for trial as a

sanction for him having insisted upon having Mr. Müller appointed as

official defence counsel.

     The applicant also complains about the Chamber's taking and

evaluation of evidence, in particular the refusal of his requests to

take further evidence.  In his view, he was merely convicted for having

refused the "deal" allegedly offered at the hearing of 5 July 1994.

     The applicant further considers that the 10th Criminal Chamber

lacked impartiality.  In this respect, he refers to the allegedly

improper conduct of the proceedings as a whole and in particular to the

alleged proposal of a "deal".

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the

Convention that his conviction by the 10th Criminal Chamber at the

Berlin Regional Court, and consequently his subsequent detention, were

unlawful.

     Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1), so far as relevant, provides as

follows:

     "1.   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:

           a.    the lawful detention of a person after conviction by

     a competent court;

     ..."

     The Commission recalls that the terms "in accordance with a

procedure prescribed by law" and "lawful detention" in Article 5

para. 1 (Art. 5-1) refer to the applicable domestic law, and it follows

that disregard of the domestic law may entail a breach of the

Convention.  However, the scope of review by the Convention organs is

limited and it is in the first place for the national authorities,

notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (cf. Eur. Court

HR, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series

A no. 33, pp. 18, 20, paras. 39, 45-46; No. 9997/82, Dec. 7.12.82,

D.R. 31, p. 245).

     In the present case, the German courts found that the applicant

had committed an attempt of aggravated robbery and had caused serious

bodily harm within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the German

Penal Code.

     The Commission considers that the applicant's submissions do not

disclose any element which could render his detention not "lawful"

within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the

Convention.

     The Commission concludes that the applicant was deprived of his

liberty "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and that he

was lawfully detained "after conviction by a competent court".

     It follows that the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the

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

2.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that he did not have a fair hearing before an impartial

tribunal.

     Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, so far as relevant,

provides as follows:

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

     him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... 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 applicant's complaints about the general conduct of the trial

proceedings and the Chamber's taking and evaluation of evidence and his

allegations of bias on the part of the Presiding Judge Hi. and the

Judges Ro. and Hä. are closely related.  In this situation, it seems

appropriate to look at the applicant's various complaints from the

points of view of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1+6-3) taken

together, especially as the guarantees in paragraph 3 represent aspects

of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1 (Eur. Court HR,

Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A

no. 110, p. 14, para. 29; Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992,

Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, para. 19).

     In the present case, the applicant was arrested in February 1994

on the basis of an arrest warrant of 1989 issued against him on the

charges of robbery and of having caused bodily harm.  The bill of

indictment was drawn up in May 1994.  In June 1994 the 10th Criminal

Chamber of the Berlin Regional Court committed him for trial and,

having held trial between 5 July 1994 and 22 August 1994, convicted him

at the latter date of robbery and having caused bodily harm.  The

applicant's appeal on points of law and his constitutional complaint

were to no avail.

     The Commission finds that the applicant's submissions regarding

the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, especially the police

investigations, the arrest warrant as well as the bill of indictment,

do not disclose any appearance of a restriction on the exercise of his

defence rights or other unfairness in the handling of his case.  In

this respect, the Commission recalls that, according to Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention, the duty of the Convention organs is to

ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting

States in the Convention.  In particular, it is not their function to

deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national

court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and

freedoms protected by the Convention (cf. Eur. Court HR, Schenk v.

Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29,

para. 45).

     As regards the applicant's complaints about the taking and

evaluation of evidence, the Commission recalls that it is not for the

Convention organs to substitute their own assessment of the facts for

that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these

courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of

the evidence which the defendants seek to adduce.  The task under the

Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety

were fair (cf., Eur. Court HR., Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of

7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; Vidal v. Belgium

judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33).

     The Commission notes that the 10th Criminal Chamber found the

applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and of having caused bodily harm

after having heard several prosecution and defence witnesses, including

the victims of the offences as well as other eye-witnesses.  The

Chamber carefully examined their statements and had due regard to the

results of the police investigations.  The defence had adequate

opportunity to examine these witnesses at the trial and to argue the

probative value of their statements as well as their credibility.

Moreover, the Chamber granted numerous requests lodged by the defence

for the taking of further evidence, in particular the hearing of

defence witnesses on the applicant's alleged alibi.  To the extent that

some requests lodged by defence were dismissed, the Chamber referred

to the irrelevance of the matters to be proven or assumed their truth

in the applicant's favour.  The dismissal of the defence requests for

expert evidence as to the applicant's own credibility as well as to the

credibility of the main prosecution witnesses, or the distance between

Berlin and the applicant's place of residence was based the trial

court's own knowledge and experience.

     Having regard to all circumstances, the Commission finds no

sufficient grounds to conclude that the trial court's taking of

evidence in the applicant's case was incompatible with Article 6

(Art. 6).  The Commission considers in particular that the applicant

failed to show the relevance of the evidence tendered by the witnesses

who were not heard by the 10th Criminal Chamber, or the necessity of

expert advice on the evaluation of the witness evidence before it.  In

its reasoning in its judgment of 22 August 1994, the Chamber explained

that the statements of the two victims were reliable and that the two

witnesses were credible.

     As to the applicant's complaints about the alleged lack of

impartiality of the judges of the 10th Criminal Chamber sitting at his

trial, the Commission has had regard to the relevant criteria

established in the case-law of the Convention organs (Eur. Court HR,

Hauschild v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21,

para. 46; Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A

no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 28; Thomann v. Switzerland judgment of

10 June 1996, para. 30, to be published in Reports 1996).

     In the present case, the applicant's allegations of bias are

related both to the personal convictions of the judges in question as

well as to appearances raising doubts as to their impartiality.

     Thus the applicant seems to suggest that the 10th Criminal

Chamber took its decision to commit him for trial as a revenge for his

counsel's insistence on being appointed as official defence counsel.

He further refers to the incident at the trial hearing of 5 July 1994,

namely his refusal of the "deal" allegedly offered by the Presiding

Judge.  He also repeats the reasons put forward in the defence's motion

to challenge Presiding Judge Hi. and Judges Ro. and Hä. which was

dismissed by the 10th Criminal Chamber, differently composed.

     The Commission observes that the first two arguments were not

raised at the trial.  Moreover, as regards the preparation of the trial

against the applicant, the Commission notes that, while in May 1994,

the Presiding Judge announced a hearing for 5 July 1994 on the question

whether to commit the applicant for trial, the 10th Criminal Chamber,

in its decision of 1 June 1994, ordered the applicant's committal for

trial which was directed to open on 5 July 1994.  In accordance with

the defence's wishes, the applicant's chosen defence counsel was

thereupon appointed as official defence counsel, and further measures

were taken in preparation for the trial.  This course of action does

not in itself give rise to any reasonable doubts as to the Judges'

impartiality.  The Commission further notes that the defence failed to

ensure the recording of the alleged "deal" and its refusal by the

applicant in due time, and, at a later hearing, the Presiding Judge

expressly denied having used any such terminology.  In these

circumstances, the Commission finds that the handling of the

applicant's case at the hearing of 5 July 1994 does not appear to be

such as to cast doubt on the impartiality of the trial court judges,

in particular the Presiding Judge.

     Finally, with regard to the applicant's arguments drawn from the

conduct of the hearing on 2 August 1994, which had also been raised in

the motion of 3 August 1994, the Commission considers that the 10th

Criminal Chamber, sitting with different judges, undertook a thorough

examination of these matters.  There is nothing to show that the trial

court's questioning of the defence witnesses served purposes other than

the precise establishment of the relevant facts, nor are there reasons

to assume that the postponement of trial hearings in the late afternoon

could raise doubts as to the trial court's impartiality.

     In sum, the Commission finds that the applicant's submissions do

not disclose any element to cast doubt on the impartiality of the

judges in question.

     The applicant's complaints do not, therefore, disclose any

appearance of a violation of his rights under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3

(Art. 6-1, 6-3) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application is likewise

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2).

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 J. LIDDY

     Secretary                                    President

to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber