CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 1997

.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. 24530/94                       by Stefco VODENICAROV                       against the Slovak Republic        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 27 September 1993 by Mr. Stefco Vodenicarov against the Slovak Republic and registered on 4 July 1994 under file No. 24530/94;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      22 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 22 April 1996 and 12 August 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1946.   He is a driver and resides in Hlohovec, the Slovak Republic.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     A.    The particular circumstances of the case        In 1992 the applicant received a temporary job in Germany through the Trnava Labour Office (Okresny úrad práce).   He was dismissed.   The applicant claimed damages from the Labour Office.   He was informed that any claim he had should be lodged with the appropriate German court.        The applicant was involved in several conflicts with his colleagues and neighbours.   The police and the local authority refused to investigate the applicant's complaints, and the co-operative which owns the block of flats where the applicant lives refused to arrange for damages to be paid to the applicant.        According to the applicant, on 16 February 1994 his wife was assaulted by Mrs. D., a neighbour.   He pursued the neighbour but she managed to escape.   The applicant and his wife unsuccessfully tried to have criminal proceedings instituted against Mrs. D.        On 24 May 1994 the Piestany Local Office (Obvodny úrad) found the applicant guilty of a minor offence against civic propriety in that on 16 February 1994 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D. in front of their house.   The applicant was reprimanded and charged the fees of the proceedings.   On 14 July 1994 the Trnava District Office (Okresny úrad) upheld this decision.        In the meantime, on 30 June 1994 the applicant had been heard in the police station.   He read a statement of Mrs. T. according to which on 16 February 1994 he had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance of their house, a medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from 16 February 1994 and a petition signed by eleven neighbours submitting that on 7 April 1993 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D.        On 30 September 1994 the Trnava District Prosecutor (Okresny prokurátor) charged the applicant with assault causing bodily harm on the ground that on 16 February 1994 he had several times hit Mrs. D. at the door of her flat.        On 12 October 1994 the Trnava District Court (Okresny súd) issued a sentence order (trestny rozkaz) by which the applicant was conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment.   On 31 October 1994 he was ordered to pay damages to Mrs. D. He challenged both orders.   Subsequently, the sentence order was cancelled and a hearing was ordered.   Mrs. D. joined the criminal proceedings with a claim for damages.        On 5 December 1994 a hearing was held.   However, the applicant behaved noisily, insulted the participants and refused to obey the judge.   He had to be removed and the hearing was adjourned.        On 12 January 1995 the President of the Trnava District Court requested a transfer of the case to another court as it was probable that the applicant would be charged with contempt of court.   The Bratislava Regional Court (Krajsky súd) dismissed the request as the District Court should have proceeded pursuant to Sections 66 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).        A further hearing was held on 21 February 1995 before a single judge at the Trnava District Court.   Before it began the applicant had shouted at Mrs. D. and refused to enter the dock, using rude expressions.   Since he did not respect the warnings, the judge ordered his removal pursuant to Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The hearing was held in the applicant's absence.   His statement from the preliminary proceedings was read out.         The applicant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.   He was conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment and ordered to pay damages to Mrs. D.   The court relied on the evidence of Mrs. D., on the statement of Mrs. T. and on that of Mr. H. who accompanied Mrs. D. to hospital.        On 2 March 1995 the applicant appealed against this judgment. He referred to the documents before the court and claimed that Mrs. D.'s submissions as to when and how the accident had occurred were not consistent.   He pointed out, inter alia, that according to the prosecution he had attacked Mrs. D. at the door of her flat which is situated above the applicant's first floor flat.   However, according to the first instance judgment the offence was committed at the main entrance of the house, i.e. on the ground floor.   The applicant argued that the first instance court had ignored his request to hear other neighbours as witnesses.        On 30 March 1995, the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the appeal.   The hearing was held in the applicant's absence.   The Court ordered the applicant to be removed pursuant to Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he had refused to enter the dock, made comments without having been given the floor and ignored the warnings of the President of the Chamber (Predseda senátu).   The applicant's wife attended the hearing but was not allowed to address the Court.        On 12 May 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office (Úrad vysetrovania) charged the applicant with contempt of court which he was alleged to have committed on 5 December 1994.        On 16 May 1995 the Trnava District Court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant.   The applicant submitted a certificate from a Bulgarian doctor and refused to be examined by appointed experts in an out-patient department.        On 5 and 7 June 1995 the applicant sought redress with the Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd) challenging the unfairness of the criminal proceedings.   On 17 July 1995 he was informed that the Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to alter or quash the decisions of general courts or to interfere with their jurisdiction.   He was further informed that the Constitutional Court cannot examine whether the counts of the prosecution were lawful.        In the meantime, on 11 July 1995, the Trnava District Court ordered the applicant to be observed in mental hospital pursuant to Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).   On 12 July 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office appointed two experts.   The applicant received both decisions on 14 July 1995, and on 15 July 1995 he challenged them.   On 17 July 1995 the mental hospital summoned him for 20 July 1995.        In the morning of 19 July 1995 the applicant was handcuffed and escorted by the police to a mental hospital. No warrant was presented. The applicant was confined in the hospital until 18 August 1995.   From 11 to 13 August 1995 he was granted leave.        On 27 July 1995 the Trnava District Prosecutor rejected the applicant's complaint against the Investigation Office's decision of 12 July 1995.        On 28 July 1995 the applicant's wife informed the General Prosecutor (Generálny prokurátor) that on 19 July 1995 the applicant had been confined in the mental hospital although he had appealed against the Trnava District Court's order of 11 July 1995 as well as the Trnava Investigation Office's order of 12 July 1995.   She claimed that the applicant's placement in the mental hospital was illegal.        On 17 August 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against the Trnava District Court's order of 11 July 1995.   The applicant was not notified.        By letter of 30 August 1995, served on the applicant's wife on 10 September 1995, the General Prosecutor informed the applicant's wife that her complaint had been referred, for reason of competence, to the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor (Krajsky prokurátor).        The same day, the prosecution for contempt of court was stayed with reference to experts' conclusion that the applicant's personality suffered from a permanent disorder which had prevented him from controlling his behaviour before the Trnava District Court during the hearing of 5 December 1994.        On 5 September 1995 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision to stay the proceedings.   He challenged the experts' conclusion and claimed damages.        By letter of 21 September 1995 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant's wife that her complaint was sent, for reason of competence, to the Trnava District Prosecutor.     B.    The relevant domestic law        The following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are relevant in the applicant's case.        Pursuant to Section 66 para. 1 the President of a court's chamber can impose a fine of up to 50,000 crowns on persons who disturb proceedings notwithstanding that they have been warned, or who offend the court or who disobey, without having offered a sufficient apology, orders issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure.        According to Section 204, the President of a court's chamber can order that persons who disturb order be removed from the court room. The removal of the accused can be ordered only by a chamber's decision, for such period as is absolutely necessary and after prior warning. After the accused has been allowed to re-enter the court room the President of the chamber shall inform him or her of the substance of the proceedings held in his or her absence so that he or she can make a comment.        Under Section 314(a) para. 1 if a case concerns an offence punishable with not more than five years' imprisonment, the proceedings are led by a single judge.   Section 314(b) para. 1 vests in a single judge the same rights and obligations as has a court chamber and its President.         Section 116 para. 1 provides for appointment, upon a written order by the court, of two psychiatric experts when there is a need to examine the mental health of an accused.        Pursuant to para. 2, if the mental health of an accused cannot be examined in another way, the court can order that he or she be observed in an institution.   Such an order can be issued in preliminary proceedings by the judge upon the proposal of the public prosecutor. The order can be challenged by a complaint which has suspensive effect.        According to Section 90 para. 2, the accused can be brought also without a prior summons, if it is necessary for the purposes of criminal proceedings, particularly, where the accused is in hiding or has no permanent address.        Section 36 para. 1 (a) provides that an accused shall be represented by a lawyer at the stage of preliminary proceedings if, inter alia, he or she is being observed in an institution pursuant to Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.        According to Section 167, the accused has the right to submit a petition, at any time during the investigation, to the public prosecutor that any wrong procedure of an investigator be brought in order as appropriate.   Such petition, to which no statute of limitation applies, must be immediately submitted to the public prosecutor who shall deal with the matter without any delay, and inform the petitioner about the findings of the review.        Section 117 provides that observation of mental health should not last longer than two months; by that time a medical report must be submitted.   If justified by the findings of an expert witness, this time can be prolonged by the court, or, during pre-trial proceedings, by the public prosecutor or the investigator with consent of the prosecutor, for a maximum period of one month. Such prolongation is subject to an admissible complaint.        According to Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act No. 60/1965 as amended, a public prosecutor must immediately release any person in unlawful detention.        According to Article 130 para. 3, the Constitutional Court may commence proceedings upon the "podnet" presented by an individual or a corporation claiming to have rights violated.        Article 17 paras. 1 and 2 provides that "personal liberty of every individual shall be guaranteed and no one shall be prosecuted or deprived of liberty unless for reasons and by methods set by law". According to paragraph 7, "a psychological examination of the person charged with an offence is permissible only on a written court order".     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered as a consequence of his dismissal in Germany.   He further complains that the Slovak authorities refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor offences and offences against his family and that the co-operative did not arrange for paying him damages.        The applicant also alleges that the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction of assault and the detention in mental hospital were unlawful and violated his human rights.   In particular, he claims that he was convicted in his absence, that the Bratislava Regional Court refused his request to hear further witnesses and did not consider all his submissions in his appeal.   He considers that he has been discriminated against on the ground of his nationality.   In substance, he alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4, Article 6 para. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 27 September 1993 and registered on 4 July 1994.        On 17 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 22 March 1996.   The applicant replied on 22 April 1996 and supplemented his submissions on 12 August 1996.        On 16 April 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid. By letter of 30 August 1996 the applicant informed the Secretariat that he wished to present his case himself.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered by his dismissal in Germany.        The Commission observes that the applicant was employed by a private German company.   The Trnava Labour Office was only the intermediary and cannot be responsible for the applicant's dismissal and, consequently, for any damage suffered.   Moreover, the Labour Office informed the applicant that any claim should be lodged with the appropriate German court.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that this situation does not involve any responsibility of the Slovak authorities.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant further complains that the Slovak authorities refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor offences and offences against his family and that the co-operative owning the house in which he lives did not arrange for paying damages to him.        Insofar as the applicant complains about the refusal of the Slovak authorities to prosecute certain persons, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third persons (cf. No. 9777/82, Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34, p. 158; No. 23997/94, Dec. 15.5.95, D.R. 81, p. 102). Therefore, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.        Insofar as the applicant complains against the co-operative, the Commission recalls that under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, it may only receive an application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 12327/86, Dec. 11.10.88, D.R. 58, p. 85).    The Commission may not, therefore, receive applications directed against private individuals or private non-state subjects, such as the co-operative in question.   Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.        It follows that this part of application must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicant also alleges that he was convicted in his absence. In substance, he alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:        "1.    In the determination ... of any criminal charge against      him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...      ...      3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following      minimum rights:      ...      c.     to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of      his own choosing ...;      ..."        The Government hold that all requirements contained in Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention had been complied with.        They submit that the applicant was able to defend his case in the public hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court, make motions of additional evidence, comment on the facts presented and make other motions.   He deprived himself of this right because he disturbed the proceedings in an unacceptable manner.   He was removed from the court room in accordance with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he failed to behave properly, despite previous warnings about possible consequences given by the President of the Chamber.   Moreover, before the final statement, he was called back to the court room but he had already left the Court building.        The applicant contests the Government's observations. He disputes the Government's allegation that the President of the Chamber at the Bratislava Regional Court on 30 March 1995 asked him to return to the court room in order to give his comments on the proceedings, because it was the President himself who ordered police officers to take him out of the court building. He also submits that during the hearing of 30 March 1995 at the Bratislava Regional Court, the President refused to give his wife the floor, although she asked for it twice. In the record of the public hearing there is no mention of it.        The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-c) of the Convention without the further observations of both parties.   4.    The applicant claims that the courts refused to hear eleven neighbours who had signed the petition against him and that the Bratislava Regional Court did not consider all his submissions presented in his appeal.   He invokes, in substance, Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) of the Convention, which provides:        "1.    In the determination ... of any criminal charge against      him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...      ...      3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following      minimum rights:      ...        d.     to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to      obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf      under the same conditions as witnesses against him;      ..."        The Government submit that the Regional Court did consider all the allegations contained in the applicant's appeal and thereupon made the conclusion as shown in the reasons attached to its decision.   The Court did not consider it necessary to call new witnesses; the applicant's appeal did not contain any motion requesting the examination of persons from other flats who had signed the petition against him.   Neither the evidence of these persons, nor their petition was relevant to the offence which the applicant had been convicted of, and it was not necessary to examine further witnesses:   the Regional Court could have either overruled the decision of the Trnava District Court and transferred the matter for retrial in the original court where such presentation of all necessary evidence would have been made upon which a new decision would have been announced, or it could have examined the evidence on its own motion.        The applicant maintains that the Bratislava Regional Court did not examine all the arguments given in the appeal and did not deal with them.   He submits that on 27 March 1995 he personally asked the judge to summon the witnesses, but the judge refused to do so.   In the applicant's view, the Bratislava Regional Court as well as the Trnava District Court, the prosecutor and the police, adopted a superficial, irresponsible, biased attitude to the case and repeatedly violated Slovak laws and the Convention.        The Commission recalls that the rules governing the admissibility of evidence are in the first place a matter for domestic courts.   The Commission's task, under the Convention, is to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf. Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 4 and Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, p. 56, para. 43).        In the present case, the Commission notes that the neighbours' petition concerned the incident of 7 April 1993 and not that of 16 February 1994.   Besides, it is not clear whether the petition constituted an item of evidence on which the first instance Court based the applicant's conviction because only the Regional Court mentioned it in its judgment as a part of the case file.        In any event, the applicant read the petition on 30 June 1994 at the police station where he had the opportunity to discuss it. Afterwards, he submitted his written observations.        Above all, the courts based their judgments on the applicant's statement from the preliminary proceedings, on the evidence of Mrs. D., on the statement of Mrs. T., according to which on 16 February 1994 the applicant had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance of their house, on that of Mr. H., who accompanied Mrs. D. to hospital, and on the medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from 16 February 1994.        In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the fact that the courts refused to hear further witnesses proposed by the applicant did not deprive him of a fair trial. In addition, the Commission considers that there is no appearance that the appeal proceedings before the Bratislava Regional Court were otherwise unfair.        It follows that this part of application is manifestly ill- founded and must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   5.    The applicant claims that his detention in a mental hospital was illegal and arbitrary. In substance, he alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention.        The Government object that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies.   He could have, under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law), submitted a petition to a public prosecutor immediately after his placement in the mental hospital, seeking remedy for the wrong procedure that may have occurred. The public prosecutor would have applied the procedure laid down in Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act No. 60/1965 (see relevant domestic law).   In the Government's view, there is no doubt that a public prosecutor would have ordered the release of the applicant from the mental hospital as the applicant had been placed there prior to an effective judicial decision.   Such order would have resulted not only in the applicant's release but it would have entitled him to recover damages for the wrong procedure applied by the investigator.        The Government note that the public prosecutor could consider this matter even now.   Accordingly, the applicant still has a chance to lodge such a petition which may have a significant impact on the recovery of damages.   The Government further submit that there would have been no order issued for the applicant's observation in mental hospital, had he not failed to communicate with the appointed medical experts and undergo an out-patient examination.   Moreover, the medical findings of the applicant's mental health resulted in the stay of his prosecution and, as soon as a medical report had been presented, the applicant was released from the hospital.        The Government also submit that the applicant could, and still can, file a "podnet" to the Constitutional Court under Article 130 para. 3 of the Constitution (see relevant domestic law) and claim that, in breach of his constitutional right, he was deprived of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 17 paras. 1 and 7 of the Constitution (see relevant domestic law).   A ruling of the Constitutional Court that the applicant's personal liberty has been violated would give rise to a right to recover damages.        The applicant claims that all remedies have been exhausted in his case.        As regards the merits, the Government claim that the applicant's placement in the mental hospital was compatible with Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   On 19 July 1995 he was brought to the medical institution by the investigator who, having received a decision of the Trnava District Court which had not yet become effective, ordered the applicant to be taken to the hospital because his previous conduct made it unlikely that he would appear voluntarily.   The examination of his mental health was required for the purposes of criminal proceedings.   In addition, the investigating office believed that the applicant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, a circumstance constituting a ground for the stay of the prosecution.        The Government state that in bringing the applicant to the mental hospital, the investigator applied Section 90 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).   The summons was delivered to the applicant on 20 July 1995 by a head of the medical staff of the hospital, who was one of the two experts appointed to give evidence based on the results of the examination of the applicant's mental health. He delivered the summons with regard to his medical schedule and was informed about the procedure taken by the office of investigation.   The Government specify that a medical summons is not a decision made within criminal proceedings, but a routine doctor- patient communication.   Therefore, the Government contend that the time difference between the factual escorting of the applicant to the hospital, i.e. 19 July 1995, and the medical summons issued by the head of medical staff, i.e. 20 July 1995, is irrelevant.        The Government, referring to the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium case (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A no. 12), note that the decision on medical observation in the mental hospital was made directly by the Court complying with the conditions under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.   They point out that the observation of mental health is, in any event, limited by time according to Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).   Moreover, the applicant could, at any time during this period, have requested the public prosecutor to protect his rights, if he believed his rights had not been respected.   He did not make such a request.        With regard to the absence of the applicant's representative during his placement in the hospital, the Government submit that under Section 36 para. 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any person who has been placed in a medical institution for mental observation has the right to be represented by counsel from the moment of his placement in the mental hospital regardless of whether the person agreed with the legal representation or not.   The applicant had the right to choose his mandatory counsel.   The Government observe that no mandatory counsel was appointed, but if he had insisted, he could have been represented by counsel of his choice.   With regard to his assets, he was very likely to obtain free legal aid.   In addition, the applicant neither objected to the absence of mandatory representation nor did he request a lawyer of his choice.        The Government further maintain that the requirement of mandatory counsel is not a condition required by law for placement of a person in a mental hospital, and the right to mandatory counsel is not guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.        The applicant submits that the Slovak authorities had no right whatsoever to order his examination on an out-patient basis or any other examination and to take him   by force from home, to "kidnap him in handcuffs and to deliberately place him into a mental hospital with the only objective - to cover up more effectively the genocides against foreign nationals and minorities".   He claims that during his stay in hospital no one advised him of his right to have a lawyer, not even when he was forcibly taken away from his home in handcuffs and brought to the hospital.        The applicant also contests the Government's submission that his complaint against the ruling of the Court of 11 July 1995 was filed on 18 July 1995 and that he did not protest against his placement in the hospital at the domestic level.   He did protest, but unsuccessfully.        The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention without the further observations of both parties.   6.    Finally, the applicant considers that he has been discriminated against on the ground of his nationality.   He invokes, in substance, Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention prohibits treating differently, without any objective and reasonable justification, persons in "relevantly" similar situations (cf. Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, para. 60).        However, the applicant does not show that another person in a "relevantly" similar situation was treated differently from the applicant.        It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission,        DECIDES TO ADJOURN the applicant's complaints that he could not      defend himself in person in the criminal proceedings in which he      was involved, that his detention in mental hospital was not      decided in a correct procedure and that he was not entitled to      take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention in the      mental hospital could be decided speedily by a court,        unanimously,      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber