The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32)

of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention

relating to the applications lodged by Mr Rolf Dobbertin against

France (Applications Nos. 9863/82 and 10924/84);

Whereas, on 4 February 1986, the Commission transmitted the said

report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three

months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the

convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the

European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48)

of the convention;

Whereas, in his applications introduced on 11 May 1982 and

12 April 1984, the applicant complained of the French courts' refusal

to set aside the inquiries into his alleged collusion with agents of a

foreign power, alleging a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), of the convention, that his detention in police custody,

which was extended at forty-eight hour intervals by the Attorney

General and which totalled six days, also violated the convention,

since he was not brought promptly before a judge or other judicial

officer, as required by Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), and that

the length of his detention on remand, which lasted until 9 May 1983

(a total of four years and three and a half months) and which he

considered excessive, violated Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of

the convention;

Whereas the Commission, having declared admissible on 16 December 1983

and 6 December 1984 the complaints concerning the excessive duration

of the applicant's detention on remand and those concerning the

duration of police custody, and having joined the two applications, in

its report adopted on 4 December 1985 expressed the opinion, by ten

votes and one abstention, that there was a breach of Article 5,

paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention, since the applicant was not

brought "promptly" before an "officer authorised by law to exercise

judicial power" and, by ten votes and one abstention, that there was a

breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention, since

the applicant's detention exceeded the "reasonable time" specified in

that provision;

Having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,

paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention and having noted that the

majority of two-thirds required by Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the convention had not been attained neither on

whether there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), of the convention since the applicant was not brought

"promptly" before an "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial

power" nor on whether there had been a violation of Article 5,

paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention since the applicant's

detention exceeded the "reasonable time" specified in that provision;

Decides that no further action is called for and accordingly removes

the examination of the case from its agenda.