KRZYCKI AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 7629/76 • ECHR ID: 001-49226

Document date: October 13, 1978

Doc ref: 7629/76 • ECHR ID: 001-49226

Document date: October 13, 1978

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to 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 Heinz Krzycki against the

Federal Republic of Germany (No. 7629/76);

Whereas on 24 April 1978 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 19 August 1976, the applicant

alleged a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the

convention, arguing that the Regional Court's decision revoking his

conditional release had been unlawful and consequently his subsequent

detention was likewise unlawful, and claimed compensation under

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

Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application

admissible on 14 July 1977, has expressed, in its report, unanimously

the opinion that Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the convention

had not been violated because the applicant's preventive detention was

covered by sub-paragraph a (art. 5-1-a) of this provision and that the

applicant had no claims under Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of

the convention;

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 that in this case there was no violation of the Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant