المساعد الشخصي الرقمي

مشاهدة النسخة كاملة : X. v. THE GERMANY - 2412/65 [1967] ECHR 18 (07 April 1967)



هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 01:07 PM
X. v. THE GERMANY - 2412/65 [1967] ECHR 18 (07 April 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and when last heardof, on 17th May, 1965, detained in prison at Münster/Westfalia. At thattime he stated that he hoped to be released on .. September, 1965.He states that, on .. December, 1960, he was convicted by the RegionalCourt (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 remandfor 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 theRegional Court at Detmold on charges of fraud and sentenced to 21months' imprisonment. His appeal (Revision), presumably to the FederalCourt, was dismissed on a date not indicated in the Application. Hisdetention pending trial, and his detention pending appeal in so far asit exceeded three months, were credited towards his sentence.On .. March, 1964, the Applicant applied to the Regional Court ofDetmold 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 Detmoldrequesting that his previous detention on remand be credited toward hispresent sentence by way of a pardon (im Gnadenwege). The Court rejectedhis petition on .. August, 1964 on the ground that his acquittal in1960 was simply for lack of evidence against him, the suspicion thathe 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 theground that neither his previous conviction nor the criminalproceedings against him in 1960 had prevented him from committingfurther offenses. This decision was communicated to the Applicant byletter of .. October, 1964, from the Pardon Division of the RegionalCourt (Gnadenstelle bei dem Landgericht) at Detmold.He complains that the refusal to give him credit for the detention onremand suffered in 1960 was unlawful. He alleges that the reasoning ofthe court and of the Pardon Division violated the Convention in thatit referred to the criminal proceedings in 1960 in which he had beenacquitted. This, the Applicant concludes, resulted in a non-recognitionof the principle that everyone shall be presumed innocent until provedguilty according to law. Consequently, he further concludes, hisdetention on remand subjected him to degrading treatment. He furthercomplains that the detention on remand itself had been unlawful.Since, meanwhile, he hopes to have been released from prison herequests to be released from payment of the costs incurred in his trialin 1963.He alleges a violation of Articles 3, 5 paragraph (3) and 6 paragraph(2) of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas the Applicant has based his claim for compensation for hisdetention on remand in 1960 on Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3), ofthe 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 anallegation of wrongful detention on remand and a consequent claim forcompensation; whereas it is to be observed, first, that under Article5, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 5-1-c), the detention of aperson "effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competentlegal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence"does not constitute a violation of the Convention, provided that theprocedure prescribed by law has been respected; whereas the Applicant'sallegations do not disclose any element which would cause theCommission to have any doubts on the question whether or not the aboveconditions have been met in the present case; whereas the Commission,having also considered ex officio the Applicant's complaint in thelight of Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4), of the Convention, findsthat 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 beenthe victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisionsof 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 anyappearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in theConvention and in particular in Article 5 (Art. 5); whereas it followsthat this part of the Application is also manifestly ill-founded withinthe meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of theConvention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that in the fixing ofhis sentence, he was refused credit for his detention on remand in1960, which was in connection with different proceedings against him,it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth inSection I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25, paragraph(1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those rights andfreedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an applicationpresented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group ofindividuals;Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of theCommission ratione materiae; whereas no right to obtain credit fordetention on remand is as such included among the rights and freedomsguaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commissionrefers to its previous decision, No. 1699/62, X. v. Austria; whereasit follows that this part of the Application is incompatible with theprovisions 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 anddegrading treatment and also the court's failure to observe theprinciple of presumption of innocence in deciding on his requests toobtain credit for his detention on remand, an examination of the caseas it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio,does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights andfreedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 3and 6 (Art. 3, 6); whereas it follows that this part of the Applicationis 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.