CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 mars 1971

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1924 and is at present detained in prison at G. From his letters and documents submitted by him, it appears that he was arrested on 31 January 1966, on the authority of a warrant of arrest (Haftbefehl) issued by the I. Regional Court (Landesgericht). He states that the police took him to the court on 2 February 1966 but the order remanding him in custody was not given before 8 February 1966 after his lawyer had lodged an appeal (Haftbeschwerde) against his arrest. He claims that he was heard only weeks later with regard to the charges laid against him. On .. February 1967 he was convicted by the I. Regional Court of several counts of fraud (Betrug) and sentenced to five years' penal servitude (schwerer Kerker). In view of the applicant's five prior convictions the court stated that the applicant is a habitual imposter. The time which the applicant spent in prison pending his trial was credited towards his sentence.   On .. March 1968 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) rejected the plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) which the applicant had lodged against his conviction. The applicant also lodged an appeal (Berufung) against his sentence but has not given any information as to the result of this appeal. While in prison pending his trial and appeal the applicant made several requests for his release which were all rejected by the Regional Court and, on appeal by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at L. (decisions of .. February, .. March, .. May, .. September 1966 and .. February and April 1968) on the ground that there was reason to believe that the applicant would abscond if released, since he had not family ties and no permanent employment in Austria and had to expect a severe prison sentence. The applicant's request for a retrial was rejected by the Regional Court at I. on .. July 1969. The Court heard a witness, who had not been heard at the applicant's trial, but it found that the statements of this witness did not justify a re-opening of the applicant's case. An appeal against this decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal at I. on .. September 1969.   Complaints   The applicant complains that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced. He alleges that he was not given enough time to prepare his defence, and that he could not, therefore, present all witnesses who could provide his innocence. He also complains of the length of his detention pending trial and the length of the proceedings.   Alleging a violation of Articles 5 (1) and (3), 6 (3) (b) and (d) and 7 of the Convention, he requests the Commission to declare his case admissible.   THE LAW   1. The applicant has complained that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced. However, in regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, the Commission has frequently stated that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In particular, the Commission is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. In this respect, the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications No. 458/59, Yearbook, Vol. 3, pp. 222, 232 and No. 1140/61, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, pp. 57, 62). In the present case, the Commission finds that there is no appearance of any such violation in connection with the decision complained of.   An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant.   2. The applicant further complained that he was detained on remand from 31 January 1966 until .. February 1967, and that the length of this period of detention pending his trial violated Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. When deciding upon the admissibility of this part of the application, the Commission had regard in particular to the judgments of 27 June 1967 of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Neumeister" and "Wemhoff" cases, in which the Court pointed out with respect to the allegations under Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3) of the Convention that it was essentially on the basis of the reasons given by the national authorities in the decisions on the application for release pending trial and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeal, that the question should be decided whether or not there had been a violation of the provisions concerned.   It follows from the decisions of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal at I., and in particular the decision of the Regional Court given on .. September 1966 that the Austrian Courts were of the opinion that reasonable grounds existed to assume that the applicant had committed the crimes of which he was accused, and that the danger of his absconding was clear. The Regional Court further pointed out that the applicant who was accused of nineteen acts of fraud, had to face a severe punishment, especially in view of his prior convictions. The Commission is of the opinion that the grounds given by the Austrian Courts are relevant and sufficient as justifying the applicant's continued detention and that otherwise there are no elements to show that the authorities were responsible for any delay in bringing him to trial.   3. The applicant furthermore complained of the length of the proceedings instituted against him which were terminated by the final decision of the Supreme Court given on .. March 1969. This complaint has been considered by the Commission in relation to the requirement that a person is entitled, in the determination of a criminal charge raised against him, to a hearing "within a reasonable time" under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. However, in view of the complexity of the applicant's case and indeed the trial court's judgment comprises 67 pages and the decision of the Supreme Court 46 pages, the Commission does not find that the proceedings lasted for an unreasonably long period.   4. In regard to the applicant's last complaint that he was not given enough time to prepare his defence and therefore was unable to call all the necessary witnesses, the Commission notes that the applicant was represented by a lawyer from the time of his arrest and that in particular, one of the witnesses who could, according to the applicant, have proved the applicant's innocence, was heard at the retrial proceedings but his deposition was not considered to be relevant.   Under these circumstances there is no appearance of a violation of the rights set out in Article 6 (3) (b) and (d) (Art. 6-3-b, 6-3-d) of the Convention.   It follows that all complaints raised in the application are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE