Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840712-999182
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 20:08:22+00:00
Document Index: 47751590

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", "l'article 27"]

BOZANO c. ITALIE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BOZANO c. ITALIE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9991/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-07-12;9991.82 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLEParties : Demandeurs : BOZANODéfendeurs : ITALIETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 9991/8 2 Lorenzo BOZANO v/ITAL Y Lorenzo BOZANO c/ITALI E
DECISION of 12 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 juillet 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
A rticle 18 orthe Convention : 7his Anicle may only be applied in connection with a provision of the Convention guaranteeing a right which is subject to restrictions. Article 25 or the Convention : A person may claim to be a victim of a violation resulting from a final criminal judgment even where, whilst in a third count ry , his extradition to the convicting Srate had been refused. Article 26 of the Convention : Case where the six months' period runs from the moment the applicant is aware of the nraaer of the complaint ; here, criminai proceedings, i .e. the period runs from the point where the applicant knows their outcome . To the extent that a complaint relates to a conviction, the fact that the defendant, extradition having been refused, thinks he can evade enforcement of the conviction, does not prevent the six months' period from running .
Article 18 de la Convention : Cette disposition ne peut @tre appliquÃ©e que conjointement Ã une autre disposition de la Convention qui garantit un droit sujet Ã restrictions . Arricle 25 de la Convention : Une personne peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation consacrÃ©e par une condamnation pÃ©nale dÃ©finitive, alors mPme que, sÃ©journant Ã l'Ã©tranger, son extradition a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ©e. - 147 -
Article 26 de la Convention : Situation oÃ¹ le dÃ©lai de six mois cou rt Ã panir du moment oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a eu connaissance de l'acte lui faisant grief; s'agissant d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale : lorsqu'il a eu connaissance de l'issue de celle-ci . Le fait qu'un condamnÃ© dont l'estradition a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ©e s'est cru Ã l'abri de l'e.rÃ©cution de sa condamnarion n'empÃ©che pas le dÃ©lai de six mois de courir, dans la mesure oÃ¹ il s'en prend Ã cette condanmation .
(English : see p. 1 53 )
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant italien nÃ© en 1945 et actuellement dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Porto Azzurro (Ile d'Elbe, Italie) . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© dans la procÃ©dure devant la Commission par Maitres Dominique Poncet et Philippe Neyroud, avocats au barreau de GenÃ¨ve, et Maitre Dany Cohen, avocat au barreau de Paris . Le requÃ©rant ful accusÃ© de l'enl8vement et de l'homicide d'une adolescente de 13 ans, S ., intervenus Ã GÃªnes (Italie) le 6 mai 1971 . Il fut Ã©galement prÃ©venu d'avoir transportÃ© et dissimulÃ© le cadavre de la victime ainsi que d'avoir tentÃ© d'extorquer 50 millions de lires au pÃ¨re de celle-ci . Statuant en premiÃ¨re instance par jugement du 15 juin 1973, la cour d'assises de GÃªnes acquitta le requÃ©rant des chefs d'accusation relatifs Ã ces faits mais le condamna Ã une peine de deux ans et 15 jours d'emprisonnement pour attentat Ã la pudeur avec violence sur la personne d'une autre femme . Ce jugement fut attaquÃ© devant la cour d'assises d'appel qui siÃ©gea du 18 avril au 22 mai 1975 . Le 18 avril 1975 le requÃ©rant demanda le renvoi de l'affaire au motif qu'il Ã©tait hospitalisÃ© . La cour rejeta sa demande et ordonna que la procÃ©dure se poursuive par contumace . Le requÃ©rant ne comparut pas aux dÃ©bats, et ce, mÃªme aprÃ©s son hospilalisation, mais fut reprÃ©sentÃ© par un avocat . Il demanda Ã la cour la rÃ©vocation de la dÃ©cision ordonnant la poursuite de la procÃ©dure par contumace, ainsi qu'un nouveau renvoi de l'audience . La cour rejeta ces requÃªtes . Le 22 mai 1975 la cour d'assises d'appel condamna le requÃ©rant Ã la rÃ©clusion Ã vie pour sÃ©questration de personne en vue d'extorsion, homicide aggravÃ© et suppression de cadavre en ce qui concemait la mineure S ., ainsi que pour actes obscÃ¨nes et attentats Ã la pudeur avec violence sur la personne de plusieurs autres femmes . Le 25 mars 1976 la Cour suprÃªme de cassation rejeta le pourvoi formÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre ce jugement . Entretemps le requÃ©rant prit la fuite et s'installa Ã l'Ã©tranger . - 148 -
Le 30 mars 1976 le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ©s la cour d'appel de GÃªnes ordonna l'arrestation du requÃ©rant en vue de l'exÃ©cution du jugement . Le 5 avril 1976, sur demande des autoritÃ©s italiennes dans le cadre d'Interpol, le nom du requÃ©rant fut inscrit au Â« Moniteur suisse de police+ du 5 avril 1976 sous ntandat d'arrÃªt extraditionnel . Le 26janvier 1979 le requÃ©rant fut arrÃªtÃ© en France oÃ¹ il vivait avec de fausse s piÃ¨ces d'identitÃ© . AppelÃ©e Ã se prononcer sur une demande d'extradition du 31 janvier 1979 prÃ©sentÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s italiennes, la Chambre d'accusation de la cour d'appel de Limoges Ã©mit, par arrÃªt du 15 mai 1979, un avis dÃ©favorable . Le 25 octobre 1979 un non-lieu fut ordonnÃ© quant Ã l'inculpation d'escroquerie, mais le requÃ©rant fut renvoyÃ© en jugement quant Ã l'accusation de faux . Le 26 octobre 1979 alors qu'il se trouvait en libertÃ© provisoire en attendant de comparaitre en justice sous cette accusation, le requÃ©rant fut arrÃ©tÃ© Ã Limoges par la police franÃ§aise . Celle-ci lui notifia un arrÃ©tÃ© d'expulsion du territoire franÃ§ais et le conduisit en voiture jusqu'Ã la frontiÃ¨re suisse . Le 27 octobre 1979 le requÃ©rant fut remis aux autoritÃ©s de police du Canton de GenÃ¨ve qui l'apprÃ©hendÃ©rent immÃ©diatement au motif qu'il Ã©tait recherchÃ© par les autoritÃ©s italiennes . Le mÃªme jour en effet, celles-ci avaient Ã©tÃ© requises par l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Police (Berne), section de l'extradition, de procÃ©der immÃ©diatement Ã la dÃ©tention provisoire du requÃ©rant en vue de l'extradition . Elles Ã©taiem, en outre, informÃ©es que l'extradition allait Ãªtre demandÃ©e par voie diplomatique . Entre-temps, par tÃ©lex du 14 septembre 1979, les autoritÃ©s italiennes avaient demandÃ© aux Etats limitrophes de la France d'intensifier leurs recherches au sujet du requÃ©rant . Par nouveau tÃ©lex du 24 octobre 1979, elles demandÃ©rent Ã diffÃ©rents Etats europÃ©ens, dont la Suisse, d'intensifier encore leurs recherches au sujet du requÃ©rant, car il Ã©tait Ã prÃ©voir qu'il serait expulsÃ© (Ã©ventuellement le jour mÃªme) . Le 29 octobre 1979, l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police dÃ©cerna un mandat d'arrÃªt Ã l'encontre du requÃ©rant, sur la base duquel il fut maintenu en dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition . Le 30 octobre 1979 l'Ambassade d'Italie Ã Beme demanda par lettre adressÃ©e Ã l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Police l'extradition du requÃ©rant (les documents Ã l'appui de la demande portent la date du 28 octobre 1979) . Devant les autoritÃ©s de police du canton de GenÃ¨ve, le requÃ©rant dÃ©clara s'opposer Ã son extradition le 14 novembre 1979 . AprÃ¨s une procÃ©dure qui s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e devant la chambre d'accusation du canton de GenÃ¨ve et devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, ce demier autorisa le 13juin 19801'extradition du requÃ©rant Ã l'Italie . Celleci eut lieu le 18juin 1980 . Le requÃ©rant fut incarcÃ©rÃ© en Italie pour y purger sa peine . - 149 -
GRIEFS Devant la Commission le requÃ©rant reproche aux autoritÃ©s italiennes de s'Ãªtre concertÃ©es avec les autoritÃ©s franÃ§aises (qui ont expulsÃ© le requÃ©rant en Suisse) et les autoritÃ©s suisses (qui l'ont extradÃ©) quant Ã la remise du requÃ©rant Ã l'Italie . II soutient que certains Ã©lÃ©ments du dossier seraient de nature Ã prouver une telle concertation . Ainsi, et en premier lieu, il ne serait pas vraisemblable que le Gouvemement franÃ§ais ait remis illÃ©galement le requÃ©rant aux autoritÃ©s suisses sans en avoir infortnÃ© les autoritÃ©s italiennes . En outre, la cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© avec laquelle la demande d'extradition fut prÃ©sentÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s italiennes au Gouvernement suisse - pendant le week-end - dÃ©montre qu'il y a eu un accord prÃ©alable sur la date de l'opÃ©ration (ceci serait par ailleurs dÃ©montrÃ© par le tÃ©lex du 24 novembre 1979 demandant aux autoritÃ©s policiÃ©res l'intensification des recherches concernant le requÃ©rant) . Enfin, il allÃ©gue que le Consul d'Italie Ã Paris avait reÃ§u des instructions de son Gouvernement en vue de lui refuser la dÃ©livrance de papiers d'identitÃ© qui lui auraient permis de quitter le territoire franÃ§ais pour un pays de son choix . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement d'une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention et affirme que la procÃ©dure en contumace ayant abouti Ã sa condamnation n'Ã©tait pas Ã©quitable et aurait portÃ© une atteinte grave aux droits de la dÃ©fense . il estime qu'en l'espÃ¨ce le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu p ar l'article 26 de la Convention n'a pu commencer Ã courir contre lui . En effet, il s'est trouvÃ© dans l'impossibilitÃ© matÃ©rielle d'agir jusqu'Ã son extradition . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EN DROI T 1. Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'une violation de l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention qui rÃ©sulterait de sa condamnation p ar les tribunaux italiens Ã la suite d'une procÃ©dure qui mÃ©connaitrait diverses dispositions de l'article 6 de la Convention, notamment en ce qu'il garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission relÃ©ve toutefois que la procÃ©dure dont se plaint le requÃ©rant a pris fin par un arrÃªt de la Cour de cassation du 25 mars 1976 rejetant le pourvoi formÃ© par l'avocat du requÃ©rant contre la condamnation prononcÃ©e le 22 mai 1975 par la cour d'assises d'appel de GÃªnes . Aucun autre recours n'Ã©tait ouvert au requÃ©rant contre sa condamnation . La Commission rappelle qu'aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention elle ne peut Ã©tre saisie que dans le dÃ©lai de six mois Ã partir de la date de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ©, il est vrai, que le dÃ©lai de six mois ne pouvait commencer Ã courir aussi longtemps qu'il Ã©tait dans l'impossibilitÃ© matÃ©rielle d'agir, du fait qu'il se trouvait dans la clandestinitÃ© .
La Commission relÃ¨ve que Â« la clandestinitÃ© . dans laquelle le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue s'Ã©tre trouvÃ© a pris fin au plus tard lors de son arrestation par les autoritÃ©s franÃ§aises, le 26 janvier 1979 . D'autre part, l'arrÃªt du 15 mai 1979 de la chambre d'accusation de la cour d'appel de Limoges refusant l'extradition du requÃ©rant Ã l'Italie Ã©tablit clairement qu'Ã cette date au plus tard, le requÃ©rant avait pris connaissance du fait que sa condamnation par les tribunaux italiens Ã©tait dÃ©ftnitive . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©galement soutenu que jusqu'Ã son expulsion vers la Suisse il n'aurait pas eu d'intÃ©rÃªt Ã agir, puisque son extradition Ã l'Italie avait Ã©tÃ© refusÃ©e et qu'il pouvait espÃ©rer ne pas avoir Ã exÃ©cuter sa condamnation . La Commission ne saurait partager cette opinion . Elle est d'avis qu'une telle condamnation affectait directement la situation du requÃ©rant, dÃ¨s le moment oÃ¹ elle avait Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e, puisqu'elle Ã©tait exÃ©cutoire . II s'agissait dÃ¨s lors d'un fait dont le requÃ©rant pouvait dÃ¨s ce moment-lÃ se prÃ©tendre victime devant les organes de la Convention (voir mutatis mutandis, requÃªte NÂ° 6959/75, c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . D .R . 5 p . 103 et Affaire Klass, Cour europÃ©etme des Droits de l'Homme, arrÃªt du 6 septembre 1978, sÃ©rie A ., Vol . 28, En Droit, par . 33, pp . 17,18 ; Affaire Dudgeon, sÃ©rie A, Vol . 45, En Droit, par . 41, pp . 18, 19) . Par ailleurs, mÃªme si l'on admettait la thÃ¨se du requÃ©rant selon laquelle son intÃ©rÃªt Ã agir n'aurait existÃ© qu'Ã partir de sa prÃ©sence en Suisse et de la notification par les autoritÃ©s suisses de la demande d'extradition formulÃ©e Ã son encontre, il n'en demeurerait pas moins que cette notification est intervenue le 30 octobre 1979 et la requÃªte est rÃ©putÃ©e avoir Ã©tÃ© introduite le 9 dÃ©cembre 1980, soit plus de six mois plus tard . Enfin, le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© que la violation dont il se plaint, qui dÃ©coule de la lÃ©gislation interne applicable, consiste en une situation continue contre laquelle il n'existe pas de voies de recours . La Commission relÃ¨ve pour sa part que la situation continue dont se plaint le requÃ©rant est sa privation de libertÃ© . Par contre, la violation de l'article 6, conceme la procÃ©dure Ã laquelle il a Ã©tÃ© soumis . Or, cette procÃ©dure s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e dans un espace de temps limitÃ© et a pris fin Ã une date bien prÃ©cise. Les violations de la Convention qui auraient pu Ãªtre commises Ã I'occasion de cette procÃ©dure, quand bien mÃ¨me elles rÃ©sulteraient de l'application qui Ã©tait faite de la lÃ©gislation interne, auraient donc dÃ» faire l'objet d'une requÃªte Ã la Commission dans le dÃ©lai de six mois fixÃ© par l'article 26 de la Convention, Ã compter de la date Ã laquelle cette procÃ©dure a pris fin ou, au plus tard, Ã compter de la date Ã laquelle il a eu une connaissance effective de la fin de cette procÃ©dure . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te est Ã cet Ã©gard tardive et doit Btre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 26 de la Convention . - 151 -
2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint par ailleurs que les autoritÃ©s italiennes se soient concertÃ©es avec les autoritÃ©s franÃ§aises et les auto ri tÃ©s suisses pour obtenir qu'il leur soit remis . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard les dispositions de l'a rt icle 18 de la Convention . Cet a rt icle dispose que : â¢ Les restrictions qui, aux termes de la prÃ©sente Convention, sont appo rtÃ©es auxdits droits et libertÃ©s ne peuvent Ãªtre appliquÃ©es que dans le but pour lequel elles ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©vues Â» . A cet Ã© gard, la Commission rappelle que l'art icle 18 de la Convention n'a pas un rÃ´le indÃ©pendant et qu'il ne peut Ãªtre appliquÃ© que conjointement avec d'autres art icles de la Convention . 11 dÃ©coule en outre des termes de l'a rticle 18 qu'il ne saurait y avoir de violation que si le droit ou la libert Ã© en question est sounÂ»s â¢ aux restrictions qui aux termes de la prÃ©sente Convention - y sont appo rtÃ©es . La Commission constate qu'en l'espÃ©ce le seul droit garanti par la Convention et soumis Ã une restriction dont le requÃ©rant pourrait se plaindre aujourd'hui contre l'Italie est le droit Ã la li be nÃ© garanti par l'article 5 de la Convention . La Commission relÃ©ve toutefois que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© p ri vÃ© de sa libert Ã© pour purger la peine rÃ©sultant d'un jugement passÃ© en force de chose jugÃ©e, rendu par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires italiennes compÃ©tentes . Le fait pour un Etat part ie Ã la Convention de veiller Ã l'exÃ©cution des condamnations prononcÃ©es par les auto ritÃ©s judiciaires constitue un but lÃ©gitime . reconnu par la Convention . Dans ces circonstances, la privation de libe rtÃ© subie par le requÃ©rant ne saurait Ã©tre contraire Ã l'art icle 18 de la Convention . Ce grief est donc manifestement mal fondÃ© et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© conformÃ©menl Ã l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
(TRANSLATlON) THE FACT S The facts of the case, as set out by the applicant, may be summarised as follows . The applicant is an Italian national born in 1945 and currently in custody in Porto Azzurro Prison (Isle of Elba, Italy) . He is represented in the proceedings before the Commission by MM . Dominique Poncet and Philippe Neyroud of the Geneva Bar and Mr . Dany Cohen of the Paris Bar . The applicant was charged with the kidnapping and murder of a 13 year old girl, S ., in Genoa (Italy) on 6 May 1971 . He was also charged with having removed and concealed the victim's body and of having attempted to extort 50 million Italian lire from the victim's father . In its judgment at first instance on 15 June 1973 the Genoa Assize Court acquitted the applicant of these charges but sentenced him to two years, fifteen days' imprisonment for indecent assault with violence on another woman . An appeal against this judgment was lodged with the Assize Court of Appeal, which heard the case from 18 April to 22 May 1975 . On 18 April 1975 the applicant applied for an adjournment of the case on the ground that he was in hospital . The court refused his application and ordered that the proceedings should continue in his absence . The applicant did not appear during the hearing, even after his discharge from hospital, but he was represented by counsel . The latter asked the court to rescind its order to the effect that the proceedings should be continued in his absence and made a fresh application for an adjournment of the hearing . The court refused these applications . On 22 May 1975 the Assize Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for false imprisonment with a view to extortion, aggravated homicide and concealment of a body in respect of the minor S . and for obscene behaviour and indecent assault with violence on several other women . On 25 March 1976 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused the applicant's application for review of that decision . In the meantime the applicant absconded and settled abroad . On 30 March 1976 the Principal State Counsel at the Genoa Court of Appeil ordered the applicant's arrest with a view to enforcement of the decision . On 5 April 1976 at the request of the Italian authorities through Interpol, the applicant's name was included in the Swiss Police Gazette ("Moniteur suisse de police") of 5 April 1976 in the list of persons whose arrest and extradition was being sought .
On 26 January 1979 the applicant was arrested in France, where he was living under a false identity . After a request for extradition had been made by the Italian authorities on 31 january 1979, the Indictment Division of the Limoges Court of Appeal vetoed the extradition in a judgment on 15 May 1979 . On 25 October 1979 a discharge order was issued in respect of the fraud charge, but the applicant was committed for trial on the charge of uttering forged documents . On 26 October 1979, while he was on bail pending trial on that charge, the applicant was arrested in Limoges by the French police . The police served on deportation order on him and took him in a car to the Swiss border . On 27 October 1979 he was handed over to the police authorities of the Canton of Geneva, who immediately detained him on the ground that he was being sought by the Italian authorities . The Geneva police had been asked that very day by the extradition section of the Federal Police Office (Bern) to take the applicant into custody immediately, pending extradition proceedings . The Geneva police were also informed that extradition was going to be requested through diplomatic channels . In the meantime, in a telex on 14 September 1979, the Italian authorities had asked the States bordering on France to step up their inquiries in respect of the applicant . In a fresh telex on 24 October 1979 they asked various European States, including Switzerland . to intensify their inquiries further in respect of the applicant, because it was likely that he would be deported (possibly that very day) . On 29 October 1979 the Federal Police Office issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest, and on the basis of this he was kept in custody pending extradition proceedings . On 30 October 1979 the Italian Embassy in Bern sent a letter to the Federal Police Office requesting extradition of the applicant (the documents in support of the request are dated of 28 October 1979) . On 14 November 1979 the applicant told the Geneva police that he was resisting extradition . On 13 June 1980, after proceedings in the Indictment Division of the Canton of Geneva and in the Federal Court, the latter authorised extradition of the applicant to Italy, and he was extradited on 18 June 1980 . In Italy the applicant was sent to prison to serve his sentence . COMPLAINTS Before the Commission the applicant is accusing the Italian authorities o f having colluded with the French authorities (who deported him to Switzerland) and the Swiss authorities (who extradited him) in order to secure his return to Italy . - 154 -
He maintains that a number of items in the file afford evidence of such collusion . To begin with, for example, it would seem improbable that the French Government handed the applicant over to the Swiss authorities unlawfully without having informed the Italian authorities . Then again, the speed with which the extradition request was made to the Swiss Governtnent by the Italian authorities-during the weekend-shows that there was prior agreement on the date of the operation (this is allegedly also demonstrated by the telex of 24 November 1979 asking the police authorities to step up their inquiries in respect of the applicant) . Lastly, he alleges that the Italian consul in Paris had received instructions from his Government to refuse to issue the applicant with identity papers that would have enabled him to leave France for a country of his own choosing . The applicant also complains of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and assens that the proceedings in absentia which led to his conviction were unfair and seriously infringed the rights of the defence . He considers that in the circumstances the six-month period provided for in Anicle 26 of the Convention did not begin to run against him, as he was physically unable to act until he was extradited .
THE LA W l . The applicant complains of a breach of Article 6 para . I of the Convention arising from his conviction by the Italian courts after proceedings which allegedly disregarded several provisions of Article 6 of the Convention and more particularly its guarantee of a fair trial . In this connection the Commission notes, however, that the proceedings of which the applicant is complaining ended with a judgment by the Court of Cassation on 25 March 1976 refusing the application made by the applicant's counsel for review of the latter's conviction on 22 May 1975 by the Genoa Assize Court of Appeal . No other form of appeal against his conviction was available to the applicant . The Commission points out that by Article 26 of the Convention it can only deal with a matter within a matter of six months of the date on which the final domestic decision was taken . The applicant has claimed, however, that the six-month period could not begin to run so long as he was physically unable to act because of his living underground . The Commission notes that the applicant ceased living "underground", as h e claimed, at the latest when he was arrested by the French authorities on 26 January 1979 .
Funhermore, the judgment of the Indictment Division of the Limoges Coun of Appeals on 15 May 1979 vetoing the applicant's extradition to Italy makes it quite clear that by then at the latest the applicant knew that his conviction by the Italian courts was final . The applicant has also maintained that until his deportation to Switzerland he had no legal interest in the case, since his extradition to Italy had been vetoed and he could legitimately hope that he would not have to serve his sentence . The Commission cannot share this view . It considers that such a conviction directly affected the applicant's position from the moment the verdict was announced, since it was enforceable . It was accordingly something of which the applicant could straightaway complain to the Convention bodies that he was the victim (see mutatis mutandis No . 6959/75, Dec . 19 .5 .76, D .R . 5 p . 3 . and Klass case, Eur . Coun H .R ., Judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no . 28, As to the Law, para . 33, p . 17-18 ; and Dudgeon case, Series A nÂ° 45, As to the Law, para . 41 p . 18-19) . Funhermore, even if one were to accept the applicant's subntission that his legal interest in that case only arose once he was in Switzerland and had been notified by the Swiss authorities of the request for his extradition, that notification occurred on 30 October 1979 and the application is held to have been made on 9 December 1980, more than six months later . Finally, the applicant has alleged that the breach of which he is complaining, arising from the applicable domestic legislation, consists of a continuing situation for which there are no remedies . The Commission notes that the continuing situation of which the applicant complains is his loss of liberty . The breach of Article 6, on the other hand, relates to the proceedings in respect of him . These proceedings, however, took place within a limited period of time and came to an end on a speciftc date . Any breaches of the Convention which might have been committed during these proceedings, even if they arose from the application of domestic law, should accordingly been made the subject of an application to the Commission within the six months' period laid down in Article 26 of the Convention, time beginning to run at the date on which the proceedings ended or, at the latest, on the date on which the applicant actually learnt of the end of the proceedings . It follows that the application is out of time on this point and must be dismissed in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant also complains that the Italian authorities colluded with the French and Swiss authorities to secure his return . He relies here on the provision of Article 18 of the Conventio n
This article provides : "The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed . " The Commission points out that Article 18 of the Convention has no independant role and can only be applied in conjunction with other articles of the Convention . It follows further from the terms of Article 18 that there can be no breach unless the right or liberty in question is subject to restrictions under the Convention . The Cornmission notes that on the instant case the only right secured by th e Convention which is subject to a restriction of which the applicant could today make a complaint against Italy is the right to freedom secured in Article 5 of the Convention . The Commission notes, however, that the applicant was deprived of his liberty in order that he should serve a sentence passed on him as a resuli of a final judgment given by the relevant Italian judicial authorities . For a State Party to the Convention to ensure that convictions by judicial authorities are enforced is a legitimate purpose recognised in the Convention . In these circumstances the applicant's loss of liberty cannot be contrary to Article 18 of the Convention . This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be dismissed pÃ»rsuant to Anicle 27 para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission
- 157 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/07/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page