CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 octobre 1988

.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 }      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 14073/88 by Owe SKOOGSTRÖM against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      J. CAMPINOS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   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;           Having regard to the application introduced on 12 May 1987 by Owe SKOOGSTRÖM against Sweden and registered on 28 July 1988 under file No. 14073/88;           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 facts of the case may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1939 and resident at Östavall.           On 16 April 1987 at 06.30 the applicant was arrested pursuant to an order of the public prosecutor at Sundsvall.   Subsequently, the public prosecutor submitted an application to the District Court (tingsrätt) of Sundsvall for the detention of the applicant.           The District Court held a hearing on 22 April 1987 and ordered that the applicant be detained (häktad) on the grounds that he was reasonably suspected of, inter alia, theft in Hongkong and fraud in Italy, and that it could be expected that he would evade legal proceedings and that, moreover, there was a risk, if the applicant was released, that he would continue criminal activities.           The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of Nedre Norrland.   The Court rejected the appeal on 24 April 1987.   The applicant submitted a further appeal to the Supreme Court (högsta domstolen) which on 4 May 1987 refused to grant leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant complains that he has not been brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also complains that he has been refused a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time and not allowed to call witnesses or prepare his defence.   He invokes Article 6 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 12 May 1987 and registered on 28 July 1988.           On 9 September 1988, the Commission decided pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) (Rule 42-2-b) of the Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.           The Government replied by letter dated 28 September 1988 that they waive objections against the admissibility of the complaint under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that he was not brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.           The Government waive objections against the admissibility of the application.           Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention reads:   "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) (Art. 5-1-c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.   Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."           The issue which arises in the case is whether the time which elapsed from the applicant's apprehension on 16 April 1987 at 6.30 hours until his appearance before the Court on 22 April 1987, i.e. six days, satisfies the condition of "promptly".           The Commission has made a preliminary examination of this question.   It finds that the question raises a serious issue, which must be examined on the merits.   The application cannot therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, but must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established.   2.       The applicant also complains that he has been refused a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time and not allowed to call witnesses or prepare his defence.   He invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.           The Commission finds that the facts and submissions of the applicant do not disclose any appearance of any violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.           It follows that, in this respect, 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   1.       DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the complaint that the applicant was not brought "promptly" before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   2.       DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.        Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission                 (H. C. KRUGER)                         (C. A. NØRGAARD)