CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 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 13 October 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         J.A. FROWEIN                         F. ERMACORA                         E. BUSUTTIL                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         J. CAMPINOS                     Mrs G.H. THUNE                     Sir Basil HALL                     Mr. F. MARTINEZ                       Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 27 August 1985 by D.G. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 10 October 1985 under file No. 11797/85;   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, a former lawyer and notary (Rechtsanwalt und Notar), is a German citizen, born in 1923 and living in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler.   It follows from his statements and the documents submitted by him that in April 1980 the applicant and the woman living with him (his companion) took up residence in Kyrenia, Cyprus and subsequently obtained a residence permit until 25 October 1980.   On 5 May 1980 the District Court (Amtsgericht) in Wiesbaden issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant who was suspected of having committed fraud by selling real estate investment certificates to some three hundred persons and using the receipts for other purposes.   On 12 May 1980 another warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant's companion who was likewise suspected of fraud.   In July 1980 the German prosecuting authority, having been informed that the applicant and his companion were living in Kyrenia, contacted the local Turkish-Cypriot authorities.   As no extradition treaty existed the possibility of an expulsion was discussed.   On 31 July 1980 the applicant and his companion were arrested by the Turkish-Cypriot police and taken to Mersia, Turkey, where they were arrested by the Turkish police.   On 21 August 1980 the Embassy of the German Federal Republic requested the Turkish Foreign Ministry to extradite the applicant and his companion.   On 16 September 1980 the Embassy informed the Turkish authorities that the warrant of arrest had been extended on 10 September 1980, following written confessions obtained from the applicant.   The extradition request was amended accordingly.   On 13 and 14 October 1980 the Turkish courts ordered the release of the applicant and his companion.   They were, however, kept in police custody and on 15 October 1980 handed over to German policemen at Ankara Airport.    The German Embassy had shortly before been informed by a telephone call that the extradition request had been granted and that the corresponding written decision would be communicated subsequently. This was done on 7 November 1980.   On 1 July 1983 the applicant was convicted by the Wiesbaden Regional Court (Landgericht) of fraud (Betrug) and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.   In so far as the applicant had argued that the criminal proceedings against him were barred because the German authorities had obtained his expulsion to Turkey and his subsequent extradition by Turkey in an unlawful manner, the Court stated that international treaties on extradition only created rights and obligations between the Contracting States.   Therefore a criminal court had no competence to examine in the course of a trial against an extradited defendant whether or not the extradition was in conformity with the extradition treaty.   Furthermore the Court stated that the principle of speciality (Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition) had not been violated as the extradition request had been amended on 16 September 1980 and the extradition had in effect been granted with regard to the charges on which the applicant had eventually been convicted.   On 27 April 1984 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected the applicant's appeal (Revision).   It only quashed the sentence in so far as the trial court had not decided to what extent the applicant's detention abroad had to be credited towards sentence.   The proceedings against the applicant's companion were discontinued.   The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions given against him in the criminal proceedings.   This appeal was rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 28 February 1985 as offering no prospects of success.   It is stated in the decision that the trial court did not violate any constitutional rights in deciding that the criminal proceedings were not barred by a possible violation of an extradition treaty.   It is further stated that the warrants of arrest issued against the applicant on 5 May 1980 and 10 September 1980 had not been arbitrary and consequently it did not violate any constitutional rights that subsequently an international search was requested by the German authorities.   It likewise did not violate constitutional rights if the applicant's expulsion from Cyprus had been provoked by a request of the German authorities, as such request could have been justified, as well as the subsequent request for the applicant's extradition, in view of the warrant of arrest of 5 May 1980.   Finally it is stated that the Federal Republic of Germany was not responsible for the applicant's detention in Turkey.   Therefore it was of no relevance that the German authorities did not submit to the Turkish authorities a declaration signed by the applicant in August 1980 stating that he was prepared to return to the Federal Republic voluntarily.   The applicant also brought an administrative court action against the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to obtaining a declaratory judgment that the German request causing his expulsion from Cyprus had been unlawful.   The action was dismissed by the Cologne Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) on 22 August 1985.   It appears that a civil action for damages, which had been suspended pending the administrative court proceedings, was likewise to no avail.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains:   that the German authorities unlawfully caused his and his companion's expulsion from Cyprus and their deportation to Turkey; that the German authorities denied them legal protection while they were in Turkey and provoked their arrest and detention despite the decision of Turkish tribunals ordering their release; and that the German authorities unlawfully obtained their extradition;   that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced.   He alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 (art. 5, art. 6) of the Convention and Article 3 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-3-2) and various other provisions of international Conventions.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant first complained that the German authorities caused his deportation from Cyprus to Turkey and subsequently illegally obtained his extradition.   He has to this extent alleged a violation of his right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) of the Convention.   However, neither his arrest in, and deportation from, Cyprus nor his detention in, and extradition by, Turkey were effected by German authorities and these measures cannot be held to involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Convention.   Furthermore it has not been established that the applicant's arrest and detention prior to his extradition to Germany had been unlawful.   Therefore the Commission has no competence ratione personae to examine this complaint which is exclusively directed against the Federal Republic of Germany.   It follows that in this respect the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention (cf. No. 2472/65, Dec. 7.4.67, Coll. 23 p. 42 <49>).   2.       The applicant also complained that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced on 1 July 1983 by the Wiesbaden Regional Court and submitted that the Court's proceedings were illegal.   With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, the Commission recalls 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, it 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 out in the Convention.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications No. 458/59, Yearbook 3, pp. 222, 236 and No. 1140/61, Collection of Decisions, 8, pp. 57, 62).   It is true that in this case the applicant also complains that the German authorities obtained his extradition in an unlawful manner. In this connection he alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.   However, this provision only relates to the proceedings determining the criminal charges against the applicant and not to the extradition proceedings.   There is nothing to show that the guarantees contained in Article 6 (art. 6) were not respected in the trial against the applicant.   It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 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)