Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19760308-670174
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 06:04:02+00:00
Document Index: 261047069

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 15", "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 27", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 5", '§ 1', "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 26", "l'article 15", "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Non-violation de l'Art. 11 ; Non-violation de l'Art. 14+11Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6701/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-03-08;6701.74 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 11-1) FONDER ET S'AFFILIER A DES SYNDICATS, (Art. 11-1) INTERET DES MEMBRESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 6701/74 X . v/AUSTRIA X . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 8 March 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 8 mars 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5 of the Convention : Reservation by Austria . A detention in view of deportation ("Polizeiliche Schubhaft'1 is an administrative measure to which this reservation applies. Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention : In order to judge whether the length of detention on remand is reasonable, the Commission may even take into account a period of this detention, which falls, as such, outside its competence . Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies (Austria) . In the absence of a reaction by the competent authorities to an appeal against detention a remand ("Ilaftbeschwerde'1, a hierarchical complaint (' Aufsichtsbeschwerde'1 cannot be considered as an effective remedy to secure release from detention on remand .
Article 5 de la Convention : RÃ©serve de l'Autriche. La Â« dÃ©tention poficiÃ©re u d'un Ã©tranger en vue de son refoulement I Pofizeifiche Schubhaft) est une mesure administrative Ã laquelle s'applique la rÃ©serve . Article 5, peregraphe 3 de la Convention : Pour apprÃ©cier le caractÃ©re raisonnable de la durÃ©e d'une dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, la Commission peut avoir Ã©gard mÃªme Ã une partie de cette dÃ©tention qui, comme telle, Ã©chappe Ã sa compÃ©tence . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes (Autriche) . Lorsque les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes ne rÃ©agissent pas Ã fa prÃ©sentation d'un recours contre la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (Haftbeschwerde), un recours hiÃ©rarchique (Aufsichtsbeschwerde) ne constitue pas un recours efficace pour obtenir qu'il soit mis fin Ã la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive.
(English : see p . 74)
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© italienne, est nÃ© en 1935 . Il est arrÃ©tÃ© le 31 octobre 1973 Ã Vienne par les forces de police douaniÃ©res parce qu'il n'a ni domicile ni revenus prÃ©cis et qu'en outre il est soupqonnÃ© d'un dÃ©lit de vol de voiture perpÃ©trÃ© Ã l'Ã©tranger . Il est donc placÃ© en dÃ©tention policiÃ¨re (Polizeiliche Schubhaft) le 31 octobre 1973 et y demeure jusqu'au 27 dÃ©cembre 1973, date Ã laquelle le tribunal correctionnel de Vienne dÃ©cide de le placer en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive sous l'inculpation de falsification de documents et de tentative d'escroquerie commis en Autriche (articles 8, 197, 199 d) et 201 dl du Code pÃ©nal autrichienl . _69_
Enfin, le 29 dÃ©cembre 1973, Interpol Rome demande que le requÃ©rant soit placÃ© en dÃ©tention en vue de son extradition IAuslieferungshaft) sur la base d'un jugement du tribunal de Parme qui l'a condamnÃ© Ã un an de prison et Ã une peine d'amende de 50 OOO lires pour dÃ©lits de recel, falsification de chÃ©ques, escroquerie avec rÃ©cidive . Pendant la pÃ©riode de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (27 dÃ©cembre 1973 au 26 mars 1974) le requÃ©rant est entendu par le juge d'instruction au sujet des dÃ©lits commis en Autriche, les 4, 17, 21, 22 janvier 1974 en prÃ©sence d'un interprÃ©te . Le 30 janvier 1974, le juge d'instruction dÃ©cide d'entamer la procÃ©dure en vue de son extradition vers l'Italie . Le requÃ©rant en est informÃ© mais ne formule aucun recours . Le 31 janvier 1974, le Gouvernement italien demande formellement l'extradition du requÃ©rant . Entre le 30 janvier et le 15 fÃ©vrier 1974, de nombreuses auditions de tÃ©moins ont lieu, auditions qui ont trait Ã la procÃ©dure interne .
Les 11 et 12 fÃ©vrier 1974, le requÃ©rant s'adresse au juge d'instruction et Ã la chambre du conseil (Ratskammer) . Ces lettres, par lesquelles il demande l'accÃ©lÃ©ration de la procÃ©dure ne sont pas considÃ©rÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s judiciaires autrichiennes comme des recours formels concernant sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (Haftbeschwerde) . Le 15 fÃ©vrier 1974, le tribunal dÃ©cide de clore l'instruction prÃ©paratoire et de renvoyer le dossier au MinistÃ©re public . Les 4, 5, 11 et 22 mars 1974, le requÃ©rant rÃ©itÃ©re ses demandes Ã l'adresse du juge d'instruction . Le 15 mars 1974, le MinistÃ©re public accuse formellement le requÃ©rant de tentative d'escroquerie et demande, en outre, la mainlevÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive qui devra Ãªtre remplacÃ©e par la dÃ©tention en vue de son extradition . Le 26 mars 1974, le juge d'instruction rend des dÃ©cisions en ce sens et le requÃ©rant est ainsi placÃ© en dÃ©tention en vue de son extradition . Le mÃ©me jour, le juge d'instruction reÃ§oit l'unique recours (Haftbeschwerde) formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant sur sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Toutefois, le requÃ©rant Ã©tant alors dÃ©tenu en vue de son extradi . tion, aucune suite n'y est donnÃ©e . La dÃ©tention en vue de l'extradition (26 mars 1974 au 22 mai 1974) se termine le jour oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant est traduit devant le tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne quant Ã la procÃ©dure interne . Pendant toute cette pÃ©riode du 22 mai, premiÃ©re phase de l'audience, jusqu'au 11 juin 1974, prononcÃ© du jugement, le requÃ©rant se trouve en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Il est d'ailleurs acquittÃ© de la prÃ©vention de tentative d'escroquerie compte tenu du fait que la preuve d'une telle tentative n'a pu Ã©tre Ã©tablie lors de l'enquÃ©te . II est toutefois condamnÃ© du chef de dÃ©tention de faux Ã un mois de prison . Une dÃ©cision du 17 septembre 1974 du tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne modifiant celle du 11 juin 1974 prÃ©cise que les pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention Ã imputer sur la durÃ©e de la peine prononcÃ©e doivent Ã¨tre calculÃ©es du 21 dÃ©cembre 1973 au 26 mars 1974 et du 22 mai 1974 au 11 juin 1974 . A partir du 11 juin le requÃ©rant est de nouveau en dÃ©tention en vue de son extradition et il est finalement extradÃ© le 19 juin 1974 . En rÃ©sumÃ© les pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant se succÃ©dent comme suit 31 .10 .1973 au 27 .12 .1973 dÃ©tention policiÃ©re Ipolizeiliche Schubhaft) - Ã partir du 21 .12 .73 : dÃ©tention Ã la prison prÃ©s le tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne
27 .12 .1973 au 26 . 3.1974 dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive 26 . 3 .1973 au 22 . 5.1974 dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition (Auslieferungshaft) 22 . 5 .1973 au 11 . 6 .1974 dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive 11 . 6 .1973 au 19 . 6 .1974 : dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition .
II rÃ©sulte de ce qui prÃ©cÃ©de que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© deux mois en dÃ©tention policiÃ©re, trois mois et vingt jours en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et environs un mois et demi en dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition . Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la durÃ©e excessive de sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et considÃ©re qu'il n'a pas Ã© tÃ© jugÃ© dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . AllÃ©guant la violation de l'article 5, Â§ 3, de la Convention, le requÃ©rant soutient que sa dÃ©tention a durÃ© sept mois et onze jours alors que la peine Ã laquelle il aurait pu s'attendre Ã©tait de six mois Ã un an (peine pouvant aller jusqu'Ã cinq ans en ces de circonstances aggravantes) . Il soutient Ã cet Ã©gard que les autoritÃ©s judiciaires n'ont donnÃ© aucune suite Ã ses diffÃ©rentes demandes relatives Ã sa dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, dans ses observations trÃ¨s dÃ©taillÃ©es commence par tracer un tableau rÃ©capitulatif des nombreux antÃ©cÃ©dents judiciaires du requÃ©rant en Italie . Les pÃ©riodes de sa dÃ©tention en Autriche entre le 31 octobre 1973 et le 19 juin 1974 s'Ã©chelonnent comme suit : 31 .10 .1973 au 27 .12 .1973 dÃ©tention policiÃ©re (polizeiliche Schubhaft) 27 .12 .1973 au 26 . 3 .1974 dÃ©tention prÃ©ventiv e 26 . 3 .1974 au 22 . 5 .1974 dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition (Auslieferungshaft) 22 . 5 .1974 au 11 . 6 .1974 dÃ©tention prÃ©ventiv e 11 . 6 .1974 au 19 . 6 .1974 dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition (Auslieferungshqft ) Le Gouvernement admet que le requÃ©rant a adressÃ© aux autoritÃ©s judiciaires un certain nombre de lettres mais elles n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©es comme recours formels portant sur la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (Haftbeschwerde) Ã l'exception d'une lettre parvenue chez le juge d'instruction le 26 mars 1974 . A ce moment-IA, toutefois, le requÃ©rant se trouvait dÃ©jA en dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition, aucune suite n'a donc pu Ã©tre donnÃ©e . Les autres lettres n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©es comme Â« Haftbeschwerde Â» parce qu'elles ne demandaient que l'accÃ©lÃ©ration de la procÃ©dure . Dans l'hypothÃ©se o0 le requÃ©rant estimait qu'il s'agissait de Â« Haftbeschwerde Â» il aurait dÃ», vu l'absence de rÃ©action des autoritÃ©s, introduire un recours jiÃ©rarchique (Aufsichtsbeschwerde) en vertu de l'article 15 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Tel n'a pas Ã©tÃ© le cas . Le requÃ©rant, de l'avis du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, n'a donc en aucune faÃ§on Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes .
Accessoirement, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur considÃ©re que la requÃ©te est de toute maniÃ©re dÃ©nuÃ©e de fondement . Dans sa rÃ©ponse, le requÃ©rant critique les autoritÃ©s judiciaires autrichiennes lesquelles, en retraÃ§ant ses antÃ©cÃ©dents judiciaires, jettent le discrÃ©dit sur sa personne . Ceci aurait pour seul but de crÃ©er une impression nÃ©gative Ã son encontre . Il reconnait avoir eu 26 antÃ©cÃ©dents judiciaires du chef d'Ã©mission de chÃ©ques en blanc Ã la suite d'une faillite commerciale en Italie . II conteste les autres chefs d'inculpation Ã©voquÃ©s par le Gouvernement .
Quant Ã la question de son arrestation le 31 octobre .1973 et la nature de sa dÃ©tention subsÃ©quente, il ne partage pas les vues du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Selon lui, il a Ã©tÃ© arr0tÃ© en flagrant dAlit de tentative d'escroquerie, alors que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur prÃ©tend avoir placÃ© le requÃ©rant Ã cette date en dÃ©tention policiÃ¨re (Schubhaft) en vue de son refoulement . Il conteste en outre le raisonnement du Gouvernement'dÃ©fendeur pour justifier la longueur de la dAtention provisoire . Les seuls points nouveaux ont trait aux conditions de sa dÃ©tention du 31 octobre au 23 dAcembre 1973 et au fait qu'il n'aurait pas eu le droit de consulter un avocat . EN DROI T
Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la durAe excessive de sa dÃ©tention et estime n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . Il soutien, en effet,que sa dAtention a durÃ© sept mois et onze jours et allÃ¨gue, Ã cet Ã©gard, la violation de l'article 5, Â§ 3 . Certes, l'article 5 reconnait Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© et l'article 5, Â§ 3, en particulier, dispose : rt Toute personne arrEtÃ©e ou dÃ©tenue, dans les conditions prAvues au paragraphe 1 cI du prÃ©sent article, doit 'tre aussitÃ´t traduite devant un juge ou un autre magistrat habilitÃ© par la loi Ã exercer des fonctions judiciaires et a le droit d'Ã©tre jugÃ©e dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, ou libÃ©rÃ©e pendant la procAdure . La mise en libertÃ© peut Ã¨tre subordonnÃ©e Ã une garantie assurant la comparution de l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã l'audience Â» . La Commission relÃ©ve que dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, les pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention de l'intÃ©ressÃ© peuvent Ãªtre distinguÃ©es comme suit : le requÃ©rant s'est trouvA en dÃ©tention policiÃ©re (polizeiliche Schubhaft) du 31 .10 .1973 au 27 .12 .1973 . Entre le 27 .12 .1973 et le 26 .3 .1974, de mr'me qu'entre le 22 .5 .1974 et le 11 .6 .1975, ce fut la dÃ©tention prAventive proprement dite IUntersuchungshaftl . Enfin, dans l'intervalle, Ã savoir du 26 .3 . au 22 .5 .1974 et du 11 .6 . au 19 .6 .1974, il s'est trouvÃ© en dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition ( A u sl ie f e ru n gs ha f t ) . 1 . En ce qui concerne les griefs du requÃ©rant portant sur la premiÃ©re pÃ©riode de sa dÃ©tention, Ã savoir du 31 octobre 1973 au 27 dÃ©cembre 1973, il y a lieu de relever que le requÃ©rant s'est trouvÃ© pendant la pÃ©riode considArÃ©e en a dÃ©tention policiÃ©re Â» en vue de son refoulement . . La dÃ©tention policiÃ©re est dÃ©finie Ã l'article 5 de .la Loi de la police des Ã©trangers IFremdenpolizeigesetzesl publiÃ©e au Journal Officiel NÂ°75 de 1954, laquelle fait partie des a lois de procÃ©dure administrative n (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetzen) concernant les mesures de privation de libertÃ© . Ces lois ontAtÃ© mentionnÃ©es dans la rÃ©serve autrichienne et promulguÃ©es dans le Journal Officiel NÂ° 172 de 1950 . Or, en ratifiant la Convention, l'Autriche a formulÃ© au sujet de l'article 5 de la Convention une rÃ©serve aux termes de laquelle it les dispositions de l'article 5 de la Convention seront appliquÃ©es sans prAjudice des dispositions des lois de procÃ©dure administrative, BGBI NÂ° 172/1950, concernant les mesures de privation de libertÃ© qui resteront soumises au contrÃ´le postÃ©rieur de la Cour administrative ou de la Cour constitutionnelle, prÃ©vue par la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale autrichienne n . Il ne fait donc pas de doute qu'il s'agit en l'occurrence d'une dÃ©tention de nature administrative qui entre dans le cadre de la lÃ©gislation en matiÃ©re de procÃ©dure administrative (cf . mutatis mutandis, les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requPtes NÂ° 1047/61, Annuaire 4, p . 357 et NÂ° 1452/62,~Annuaire 6, p . 269) . _72_
La rÃ©serve formulÃ©e par le Gouvernement autrichien au sujet de l'article 5 5'applique, par consÃ©quent, au cas du requÃ©rant . Il s'ensuit que cette pa rtie de la requÃªte est incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention, telles qu'elles sont applicables Ã l'Ã©gard de l'Autriche, et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, 3 2, de la Convention . 2 . En ce qui concerne le grief du requÃ©rant relatif Ã la pÃ©riode de sa dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition (Auslieferungshaft), pÃ©riode qui se situe entre le 26 mars et le 22 mai 1974 et entre le 11 juin et le 19 juin 1974, il y a lieu d'observer que la Convention stipule en son article 5, Â§ 1 f) que u Nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales : . . . s'il s'agit de l'arrestation ou de la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ©re d'une personne . . . contre laquelle une procÃ©dure d'expulsion ou d'extradition est en cours tr . Il est clair que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ©tenu dans de telles circonstances et que, par consÃ©quent, un examen du dossier tel qu'il se prÃ©sente, ne permet pas de dÃ©celer la moindre apparence de violation de l'article 5, Â§ 1 . La Commission se rÃ©fÃ©re sur ce point Ã sa jurisprudence en la matiÃ©re, notamment Ã sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te NÂ° 18 0 2/62, X . c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Annuaire 6, pp . 463 (481), et parvient ainsi Ã la conclusion que cette partie de la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e par application de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . 3 . Enfin, le requÃ©rant se plaint de la pÃ©riode de sa dÃ©tention qui s'Ã©tend du 27 dÃ©cembre 1973 au 26 mars 1974 et du 22 mai 1974 au 11 juin 1974, soit une pÃ©riode de prÃ©s de quatre mois, laquelle constitue la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive au sens de l'article 5, Â§ 1 c), de la Convention, auquel renvoie l'article 5, Â§ 3 ci-dessus Ã©noncÃ© . Aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention a la Commission ne peut Ã©tre saisie qu'aprÃ©s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus Â» .
La Commission examinera d'abord si le requÃ©rant a po rtÃ© ses griefs devant les instances internes . La Commission relÃ¨ve que le requÃ©rant a adressÃ© aux autoritÃ©s judiciaires un certain nombre de lettres qui, Ã l'exception de l'une (voir ci-dessus l'argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur) n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ©es comme des recours formels portant sur la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive IHaftbeschwerdel, parce qu'elles ne demandaient que l'accÃ©lÃ©ration de la procÃ©dure . A cet Ã©gard, il y a lieu d'observer que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur objecte que si le requÃ©rant avait nÃ©anmoins estimÃ© que ses lettres constituaient des Â« Haftbeschwerden Â» il aurait dÃ», vu l'absence de rÃ©action des autoritÃ©s, introduire un recours hiÃ©rarchique (Aufsichtsbeschwerdel, c'est-Ã©-dire dÃ©clencher une procÃ©dure disciplinaire . Un tel recours, dÃ©nonÃ§ant un retard dans l'administration de la justice, aurait d0 se faire conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 15 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale autrichien . Or, le requÃ©rant n'a pas fait usage de cette voie de recours et le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur de conclure Ã l'irrecevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . La Commission accepte qu'un tel recours aurait pu valablement se fonder sur les griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant . La question se pose, cependant, de savoir si ce recours aurait Ã©tÃ© a efficace Â» compte tenu de l'interprÃ©tation gÃ©nÃ©ralement adoptÃ©e par la Commission de l'article 26 de la Convention .
La Commission est d'avis toutefois - et sur ce point elle se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã sa jurisprudence, en particulier Ã sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 4459/70, X . c/Autriche, Rec . 38, pp . 44/55 - qu'un tel recours ne saurait en gÃ©nÃ©ral Ptre considÃ©rÃ© comme efficace au sens de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e, s'agissant d'obtenir qu'il soit mis fin Ã une dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . L'exception tirÃ©e du non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes doit donc Ptre Ã©cartÃ©e Ã cet Ã©gard . La Commission se propose donc d'examiner ensuite si la longueur de la dÃ©tention telle que l'a subie le requÃ©rant Ã©tait justifiÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet, il est vrai, d'une condamnation le 11 juin 1974, par le tribunal rÃ©gional de Vienne Ã une courte peine de prison, d'une durÃ©e d'un mois du chef de dÃ©tention de faux aprÃ©s avoir Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ© de la prÃ©vention de tentative d'escroquerie vu l'absence de preuves .
Pour apprÃ©cier s'il y a eu Â« dÃ©lai raisonnable Â» au sens de l'article 5, Â§ 3, la Commission se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã l'interprÃ©tation de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans son arrÃ©t Neumeister (Cour Eur . D .H ., Arrit du 27 juin 1968, p . 37) et estime qu'il faut tenir compte de l'ensemble de la pÃ©riode pendant laquelle le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de libertÃ©, soit du 31 octobre 1973 au 19 juin 1974, bien qu'une partie de cette pÃ©riode Ã©chappe en principe Ã la compÃ©tence ratione materiae de la Commission . Toutefois, les circonstances de l'affaire telles qu'elles ont Ã©tÃ© mises en lumiÃ©re par les parties et, en particulier, le dÃ©roulement de trois procÃ©dures parallÃ¨les, dont une administrative et deux judiciaires, amÃ©nent la Commission Ã conclure que les griefs du requÃ©rant portant sur la prÃ©tendue longueur excessive de sa dÃ©tention ne font apparaitre la moindre apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention et notamment par son article 5, 4 3 .
II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e par application de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE .
(TRANSLATION ) THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant, of Italian nationality, was born in 1935 . He was arrested in Vienna on 31 October 1973 by the customs authorities because he had no precise address or income and was suspected of stealing a car abroad . He was therefore placed in detention with a view to deportation (polizeiliche Schubhaft) on 31 October 1973 and stayed there until 27 December 1973, when the Vienna correctional court placed him in detention on remand on a charge of falsification of documents and attempted fraud in Austria (Articles 8, 197, 199 Idl and 201 ( d) of the Austrian Criminal Code) . On 29 December 1973 Interpol in Rome asked for the applicant to be placed in detention with a view to extradition (Auslieferungshaft) on the strength of a judgment by a court in Parma, which had sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 50000 Lire for receiving stolen goods, falsifying cheques and repeated fraud .
On 4 . 17, 21 and 22 January 1974 and while in detention on remand 127 December 1973 - 26 March 19741, the applicant was heard by the examining judge, in the presence of an interpreter, on the subject of the offences committed in Austria . On 30 January 1974, the examining judge decided to initiate the procedure for the applicant's extradition to Italy . The applicant was informed of this but did not lodge any appeal . On 31 January 1974, the Italian Government formally applied for the applicant's extradition . Between 30 January and 15 February 1974 numerous hearings of witnesses were held in connection with the domestic proceedings . On 11 and 12 February 1974 the applicant wrote to the examining judge and the Regional Coun IRatskammerl . His letters, in which he asked for the procedure to be speeded up, were not regarded by the Austrian judicial authorities as formal appeals concerning his detention on remand (Haftbeschwerden) . On 15 February 1974 the court decided to close the preliminary investigation and remit the case to the Public Prosecutor's Office . On 4, 5, 11 and 22 March 1974, the applicant reiterated his requests to the examining judge . On 15 March 1974, the Public Prosecutor's Office formally accused the applicant of attempted fraud and asked for his detention on remand to be replaced by detention with a view to extradition . On 26 March 1974, the examining judge announced that his decision was in line with the Public Prosecutor's request, and the applicant was accordingly placed in detention with a view to being extradited . On the same day the examining judge received the applicant's one and only appeal against his detention on remand (Haftbeschwerde) . However, as the applicant was by then in detention pending extradition no action was taken on the appeal . The detention pending extradition ( 26 March 1974-22 May 1974) ended on the day when the applicant was brought before ihe Vienna regional cou rt in connection with domestic legal proceedings . From 22 May 1974 (start of the trial) until 11 June 1974 (verdict) the applicant was in detention on remand . He was in fact acquitted of the charge of attempted fraud owing to a lack of evidence but was convicted of possession of forged documents and sentenced to one month's imprisonment . A decision of 17 September 1974 by the Vienna regional cou rt, amending the decision of 11 June 1974, stipulated that the periods of detention to be deducted from the length of the sentence should be those from 21 December 1973 to 26 March 1974 and from 22 May 1974 to 11 June 1974 . From 11 June onwards the applicant was again in detention pending extradition and was finally extradited on 19 June 1974 .
To sum up, the applicant's various periods of detention were as follows 31 .10 .73-21 .12 .73 : detention with a view to depo rtation (polizeiliche Schubhaftl-from 21 December 1973 : detention at the prison attached to Vienna regional cou rt 27 .12 .73-26 .3 .74 : detention on reman d detention pending extradition (Auslieferungshaft) 26 .3 .74-22 .5 .74 22 .5 .74-11 .6 .74 : detention on reman d 11 .6.74-19 .6 .74 detention pending extradition . Consequently, the applicant spent 2 months in detention with a view to depo rt ation, 3 months and 20 days in detention on remand and about a month and a half in detention pending extradition .
The complaints of the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant complains of the excessive length of his detention on remand and considers he was not tried within a reasonable time . Alleging a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention, he maintains that his detention lasted 7 months and 11 days whereas the sentence he could have expected was one of between 6 months and a year (or up to 5 years in the case of aggravating circumstances) . He maintains in this regard that the judicial authorities took no action on his various requests concerning his detention on remand .
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIE S In its highly detailed observations, the respondent Government first of all recapitulates the applicant's many previous convictions in Italy .
The applicant's periods of detention in Austria between 31 October 1973 and 19 June 1974 were as follows : 31 .10 .73-27 .12 .73 detention with a view to depo rtation (polizeiliche Schubhaft) detention on remand 27 .12 .73-26 .3 .74 26 .3.74-22 .5 .74 detention pending extradition IAuslieferungshaftl 22 .5.74-11 .6 .74 detention on remand 11 .6.74-19 .6 .74 detention pending extradition (Auslieferungshaft) . The Government acknowledges that the applicant wrote several le tt ers to the judicial authorities but states that they were not regarded as formal appeals against his detention on remand ( Haftbeschwerden) with the exception of a letter which reached the examining judge on 26 March 1974. By then, however, the applicant was already in detention pending extradition and it was not therefore possible to take any action . The other le tt ers were not regarded as "Haftbeschwerden" because they merely asked for the domestic legal procedure to be speeded up . If the applicant himself had regarded his letters as "Haftbeschwerden" he ought, in view of the absence of reaction from the authorities, to have lodged an appeal to a hierarchical higher cou rt ( Aufsichtsbeschwerde) under A rt icle 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . This was not done . Accordingly, in the respondent Government's view, the applicant by no means exhausted all the domestic remedies . Fu rt hermore, the respondent Government considers the application to be in any event unfounded .
In his reply, the applicant criticises the Austrian judicial authorities for discrediting him by recapitulating his previous convictions . Their sole purpose in doing so, he claims, is to create an unfavourable impression of him . He acknowledges having had 26 convictions for uttering blank cheques after a commercial bankruptcy in Italy, but disputes the other charges mentioned by the Government . He disagrees with the respondent Government on the question of his arrest on 31 October 1973 and the nature of his subsequent detention . According to him, he was arrested in the act of attempting to commit fraud whereas the respondent Government maintains that on that date he was placed in detention with a view to depo rt ation ( polizeiliche Schubhaft) .
He also disputes the respondent Government's reasons for the length of his detention on remand . The only new points concern the circumstances of his detention from 31 October to 23 December 1973 and his allegation that he was denied an opportunity to consult a lawyer . THE LAW The applicant complains of the excessive length of his detention and considers that he was not tried within a reasonable time . He maintains that he was kept in detention for 7 months and 11 days and alleges that this constitutes a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention . It is true that Article 5 guarantees to everyone the right to liberty and security of person and that paragraph 3 of the same article provides as follows : "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 Icl 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 Commission notes that the applicant's periods of detention may be distinguished as follows : from 31 .10.1973 to 27 .12 .1973 he was in detention with a view to deportation (polizeiliche Schubhaftl : from 27 .12 .1973 to 26 .3 .1974 and from 22 .5.1974 to 11 .6 .1975 he was in detention on remand (Untersuchungshaft) and in between, i .e . from 26 .3 .1974 to 22 .5 .1974 and from 11 .6 .1974 to 19 .6 .1974, he was in detention pending extradition (Auslieferungshaft) . 1 . As regards the applicant's complaints concerning his first period of custody, i .e . from 31 October 1973 to 27 December 1973, it should be noted that during this period he was in detention with a view to deportation .
Detention with a view to deportation is defined in Section 5 of the Aliens' Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz), which was published in the Austrian Official Gazette No . 75 of 1954 and is one of the "laws on administrative procedure" IVerwaltungsverfahrensgesetze) concerning measures for the deprivation of liberty . These laws, promulgated in Official Gazette No . 172 of 1950, are referred to in the Austrian reservation . In ratifying the Convention, Austria entered a reservation with respect to Article 5 to the effect that "provisions of Article 5 of the Convention shall be so applied that there shall be no interference with the measures for the deprivation of liberty laid down in the laws of administrative procedure, BGBI No . 172/1950, and that these will remain subject to review by the Administrative Court or the Constitutional Court as provided for in the Austrian Federal Constitution" . There is therefore no doubt that the detention involved in the present case is of an administrative kind covered by legislation on administrative procedure (cf . mutatis mutandis, the decision on the admissibility of Applications Nos 1047/61, Yearbook 4, page 356, and 1452/62, Yearbook 6, page 268) . Consequently, the Austrian Government's reservation concerning Article 5 affects the applicant's case . Accordingly this part of the application is incompatible with the Convention's provisions as applicable in respect of Austria and should be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
2 . As regards the applicant's complaint concerning his periods of detention pending extradition fAuslieferungshattl,-from 26 March to 22 May 1974 and from 11 June to 19 June 1974-, Article 5, paragraph 1(f ) , stipulates that "No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law : . . . the lawful arrest or detention of a person . . . against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition" . Clearly the applicant was being detained in such circumstances and, therefore, an examination of the case as it has been submitted shows no appearance of a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 . On this point the Commission refers to its previous practice in the matter, particularly to its decision on the admissibility of Application No . 1802/62, X . against the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook 6, p . 461 at p . 480, and reaches the conclusion that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
3 . Lastly, the applicant complains of his periods of detention from 27 December 1973 to 26 March 1974 and from 22 May 1974 to 11 June 1974, a total of nearly 4 months of detention on remand within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention, to which the above-mentioned Article 5, paragraph 3, refers . According to Article 26 of the Convention, "the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law" . It should be considered first of all whether the applicant submitted his complaints to the domestic authorities . The Commission notes that the applicant sent to the judicial authorities a number of letters which, with one exception (see arguments of the respondent Government, above), were not regarded as formal appeals against detention on remand (Haftbeschwerden), because they merely asked a speeding up of procedure . In this regard it should be observed that the respondent Government points out that if the applicant had himself considered his letters to be "Haftbeschwerden", he ought, in view of the absence of a reaction from the authorities, to have lodged an appeal to a higher court (Aufsichtsbeschwerde), with a view to initiating disciplinary procedure . Such an appeal alleging delay in the administration of justice, ought to have been made in accordance with Article 15 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure . However, the applicant made no use of this remedy, from which the responderit Government concludes that his application is inadmissible on the ground of failure to exhaust all domestic remedies as provided for in Article 26 of the Convention .
The Commission agrees that the applicant could validly have made an appeal on the basis of his complaints . However, there arises the question of whether it would have been "effective" in the light of the Commission's usual interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention . The Commission considers-and on this point it refers to its previous practice, particularly to its decision on the admissibility of Application No . 4459/70, X . against Austria, Collection 38, p . 44 at p . 54-that such a remedy cannot in general be considered an effective one within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision in instances whereas the aim is to secure release from detention on remand . The argument of failure to exhaust all domestic remedies should therefore be rejected in this regard .
It should therefore next be considered whether the length of the applicant's detention was justified . The applicant, it is true, was sentenced on 11 June 1974 by the Vienna regional cou rt to a short term of imprisonment ( one month) for possession of forget documents after being acquitted of attempted fraud in the absence of evidence . To judge whether the applicant was brought to trial "within a reasonable time" as provided for in Article 5, paragraph 3, the Commission refers to the interpretation given by the European Coun of Human Rights in its Neumeister judgment (European Cou rt of Human Rights, judgment of 27 June 1968, p . 37) and takes the view that account should be taken of the entire period during which the applicant was deprived of libe rt y, i .e . from 31 October 1973 to 19 June 1974, even though part of that period is in principle outside the Commission's competence " ratione materiae" .
However, the circumstances of the case as expounded by the pa rt ies and particularly the occurrence of three parallel sets of proceedings-one administrative, two judicial-lead the Commission to conclude that the appl icant's complaints about the alleged excessive length of his detention do not show the slightest appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, particularly Article 5, paragraph 3 . It follows that this pa rt of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and shoul d be rejected under A rticle 27, paragraph 3, of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
_79-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 08/03/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page