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 application lodged by Mr Franco Caprino against the

United Kingdom (Application No. 6871/75);

Whereas on 30 October 1980 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

has 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 application introduced on 16 January 1975 the applicant

complained inter alia that the judicial review of the lawfulness of

his detention in view of his deportation was limited in scope and thus

in breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention;

Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application

admissible on 3 March 1978 considered, in its report adopted on

17 July 1980, that Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), envisages only

remedies available during the time of detention and that a remedy

available after release (claim of damages for false imprisonment) does

not therefore enter into account for the purposes of this provision,

that the convention does not require any judicial review of

deportation proceedings as such, and that the legal position under the

convention cannot be judged otherwise even if a deportation order

serves as the basis for detention, that the scope of the judicial

review of the deportation order by certiorari proceedings is therefore

irrelevant under Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), that a judicial

control of the lawfulness of the detention by "habeas corpus"

proceedings would have been available in the present case, but that

the applicant had failed to make use of this remedy or to indicate any

particular grounds for the unlawfulness of his detention which the

courts would not have investigated, that in these circumstances the

question whether the judicial review provided by this remedy would

have been sufficiently wide in scope was one which the Commission

could not consider merely on the basis of a hypothetical judgment;

Whereas the Commission has expressed the opinion in its report,

by 8 votes to 1 and 1 abstention that there has been no breach of

Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention in this case;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the convention,

Decides in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.