European Court of Human Rights

THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and when last heard
of, on 17th May, 1965, detained in prison at Münster/Westfalia. At that
time he stated that he hoped to be released on .. September, 1965.

He states that, on .. December, 1960, he was convicted by the Regional
Court (Landgericht) at Detmold on charges of receiving stolen goods
(Hehlerei). Upon appeal (Revision) presumably to the Federal Court
(Bundesgerichtshof) he was acquitted for lack of evidence against him
(Mangel an Beweisen). He had spent 2 1/2 months in detention on remand
for which, however, he had received no compensation. He states that,
at the time, he had lodged an appeal to have his detention examined
(Haftbeschwerde) which had been dismissed.

It appears that, on .. November, 1963, he was again convicted by the
Regional Court at Detmold on charges of fraud and sentenced to 21
months' imprisonment. His appeal (Revision), presumably to the Federal
Court, was dismissed on a date not indicated in the Application. His
detention pending trial, and his detention pending appeal in so far as
it exceeded three months, were credited towards his sentence.

On .. March, 1964, the Applicant applied to the Regional Court of
Detmold for compensation for the detention on remand suffered in 1960.
This was rejected on .. April, 1964, and again on .. May, 1964. On ..
June, 1964, he lodged a petition with the Regional Court at Detmold
requesting that his previous detention on remand be credited toward his
present sentence by way of a pardon (im Gnadenwege). The Court rejected
his petition on .. August, 1964 on the ground that his acquittal in
1960 was simply for lack of evidence against him, the suspicion that
he had committed the offence still persisting. The Applicant appealed
(Beschwerde) to the Minister of Justice of North Rhine-Westfalia on ..
August, 1964. The appeal was rejected on .. October, 1964, on the
ground that neither his previous conviction nor the criminal
proceedings against him in 1960 had prevented him from committing
further offenses. This decision was communicated to the Applicant by
letter of .. October, 1964, from the Pardon Division of the Regional
Court (Gnadenstelle bei dem Landgericht) at Detmold.

He complains that the refusal to give him credit for the detention on
remand suffered in 1960 was unlawful. He alleges that the reasoning of
the court and of the Pardon Division violated the Convention in that
it referred to the criminal proceedings in 1960 in which he had been
acquitted. This, the Applicant concludes, resulted in a non-recognition
of the principle that everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law. Consequently, he further concludes, his
detention on remand subjected him to degrading treatment. He further
complains that the detention on remand itself had been unlawful.

Since, meanwhile, he hopes to have been released from prison he
requests to be released from payment of the costs incurred in his trial
in 1963.

He alleges a violation of Articles 3, 5 paragraph (3) and 6 paragraph
(2) of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas the Applicant has based his claim for compensation for his
detention on remand in 1960 on Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3), of
the Convention which refers to Article 5, paragraph (1) (c)
(Art. 5-1-c), and consequently also on Article 5, paragraph (5)
(Art. 5-5);

Whereas the Commission does not find that Article 5, paragraph (3)
(Art. 5-3), is relevant in the present case which only concerns an
allegation of wrongful detention on remand and a consequent claim for
compensation; whereas it is to be observed, first, that under Article
5, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), the detention of a
person "effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence"
does not constitute a violation of the Convention, provided that the
procedure prescribed by law has been respected; whereas the Applicant's
allegations do not disclose any element which would cause the
Commission to have any doubts on the question whether or not the above
conditions have been met in the present case; whereas the Commission,
having also considered ex officio the Applicant's complaint in the
light of Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4), of the Convention, finds
that there is no appearance of any violation of that provision;
whereas, consequently, the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (5)
(Art. 5-5), do not apply to this case as only a person "who has been
the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions
of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation";
whereas, therefore, examination of the case as it has been submitted,
including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and in particular in Article 5 (Art. 5); whereas it follows
that this part of the Application is also manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that in the fixing of
his sentence, he was refused credit for his detention on remand in
1960, which was in connection with different proceedings against him,
it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article
1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in
Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25, paragraph
(1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those rights and
freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an application
presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of
individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the
Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to obtain credit for
detention on remand is as such included among the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission
refers to its previous decision, No. 1699/62, X. v. Austria; whereas
it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of alleged inhuman and
degrading treatment and also the court's failure to observe the
principle of presumption of innocence in deciding on his requests to
obtain credit for his detention on remand, an examination of the case
as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio,
does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 3
and 6 (Art. 3, 6); whereas it follows that this part of the Application
is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph
(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.