CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 mai 1986

.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 European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present:                     MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                       G. SPERDUTI                       J.A. FROWEIN                       G. JÖRUNDSSON                       S. TRECHSEL                       B. KIERNAN                       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                       A. WEITZEL                       J.C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                       G. BATLINER                       H. VANDENBERGHE                   Mrs G.H. THUNE                   Sir Basil HALL   Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);   Having regard to the application introduced on 29 November 1984 by H.E. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 12 February 1985 under file No. 11403/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1942 and presently detained in prison at Berlin-Tegel.   It follows from his statements and the documents submitted by him that on 8 December 1983 he and two co-accused were convicted by the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht) of having dealt with drugs (unerlaubtes Handeltreiben mit Betäubungsmitteln).   He was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.   According to the findings of the court the police obtained in May 1983 information that the applicant, who had been living in Germany since 1969 without having been convicted before, was a   drug dealer. Subsequently the police charged an informant (Vertrauensmann) to contact the applicant in order to obtain evidence that he dealt with heroin.   Initially the informant did not succeed in initiating concrete discussions with the applicant about drug deals.   In August 1983 he eventually declared to the applicant that he was interested in acquiring an important amount of hashish.   The applicant agreed to supply several kilogrammes thereof.   A deal concerning eight kilogrammes was concluded and the applicant was then arrested shortly before the hashish was supposed to be handed over to the informant.   The court stated that the applicant had confessed that he concluded the drug deal hoping thereby to pay off his debts.   The applicant lodged an appeal (Revision) alleging that, prior to his contacts with the police informant, he had never dealt with drugs and had been induced to do so by the police informant who pressed him for months to provide drugs.   On 26 June 1984 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected the appeal as being ill-founded.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant submits that he was provoked by a police agent to commit a drug offence.   He argues that the action of the police informant amounted to an interference with his private life as protected by Art 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   Furthermore he alleges violations of Arts 5 (Art. 5) and 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention arguing that the activities of police informants and undercover agents are not regulated by law.   THE LAW The applicant complains that a police informant incited him to enter into an unlawful deal with drugs.   He argues that this violated his right to liberty and security guaranteed by Art 5 (Art. 5) of the as well as his right to protection of private life (Art 8 (Art. 8)).   He has lodged an appeal to the Federal Court and thereby exhausted domestic remedies as he could not in addition lodge a constitutional complaint against the judgment given by a criminal court in Berlin (West).   As regards the alleged violation of Art 5 (1) (Art. 5-1) which guarantees, according to its first sentence, the right to liberty and security of person, the Commission observes that this provision is meant to offer protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. This follows from the second sentence of para (1) (Art. 5-1-2) and the following provisions of the Article.   As regards the alleged violation Art 8 (1) (Art. 8-1) which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence the Commission considers that the action of the police informant did not amount to any interference with this right.   According to the trial court's judgment the police only took action against the applicant after having received information that he dealt with drugs.   The applicant was then contacted by an informant and proposed a drug deal.   He has, however, not shown that any kind of pressure, threat or coercion was exercised against him by the informant obliging or enticing him to enter into the deal.   It follows from the uncontested findings in the Regional Court's judgment that the applicant confessed to having accepted the deal hoping to pay off his debts.   The applicant consequently accepted the offer and subsequently he organised the deal for the purpose of earning money and ameliorating his financial situation.   In these circumstances it cannot be found that he was in any way unduly influenced in his own free will and initiative to accept and organise the drug deal (cf. Dec. N° 10747/84, 7.10.85, unpublished).   Finally as regards the alleged violation of Art 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention the Commission notes that the applicant had the possibility of an appeal to the Federal Court.   An examination by the Commission of his 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 out in the Convention and in particular in the above Articles.   It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art 27 (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)