CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 30 avril 1981

.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 Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged by Mr Franco Caprino against the United Kingdom (Application No. 6871/75);   Whereas on 30 October 1980 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in his application introduced on 16 January 1975 the applicant complained inter alia that the judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention in view of his deportation was limited in scope and thus in breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention;   Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application admissible on 3 March 1978 considered, in its report adopted on 17 July 1980, that Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), envisages only remedies available during the time of detention and that a remedy available after release (claim of damages for false imprisonment) does not therefore enter into account for the purposes of this provision, that the convention does not require any judicial review of deportation proceedings as such, and that the legal position under the convention cannot be judged otherwise even if a deportation order serves as the basis for detention, that the scope of the judicial review of the deportation order by certiorari proceedings is therefore irrelevant under Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), that a judicial control of the lawfulness of the detention by "habeas corpus" proceedings would have been available in the present case, but that the applicant had failed to make use of this remedy or to indicate any particular grounds for the unlawfulness of his detention which the courts would not have investigated, that in these circumstances the question whether the judicial review provided by this remedy would have been sufficiently wide in scope was one which the Commission could not consider merely on the basis of a hypothetical judgment;   Whereas the Commission has expressed the opinion in its report, by 8 votes to 1 and 1 abstention that there has been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention in this case;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   Decides in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.