CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 février 1970

.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 FACTS   Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1931, and at present hospitalised in a sanatorium at S. The case has been presented to the Commission by his wife, Mrs W who is acting under an undated authorization from her husband.   From the statements and documents submitted it appears that, on .. February 1968, the applicant was convicted by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Osnabrück for having stolen cattle in 23 cases and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. His appeal (Revision) to the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) was rejected on .. August 1968.   The applicant now complains that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced. He explains that his conviction was based solely on a confession made by his brother who had been convicted and sentenced as being the applicant's accomplice. This confession had been taken on record by the police at R but the record had not been produced in evidence at the trial. Instead the police officer concerned had been heard as a witness and the applicant alleges that he committed perjury.   On the other hand, the applicant's wife had kept a complete diary of her husband's activities during the period in question admitted. It emerges however from the Regional Court's judgment that the court had in fact dealt with the entries in that diary which is considered as being questionable.   The applicant also seems to complain that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. He explains that his brother had made a confession on .. September 1965 and that he himself had been questioned by the police for the first time in this connection on .. September 1965. It had taken about three years   until his conviction and sentence became final, namely by decision of the Federal Court, dated .. August 1968.   The applicant alleges violations of Articles 3 and 6, paragraph (2), of the Convention.   THE LAW   Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to his conviction and sentence, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant;   Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention;   Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium- Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no appearance of any such violation in the present case; whereas it follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.   Whereas insofar as the applicant seems to complain of the length of the proceedings concerned, the Commission had regard to Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention which provides that in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time;   Whereas, according to the point of view adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments of 27 June 1968, in the "Wemhoff" and "Neumeister" Cases, the period covered by the above provisions begins with the day on which a person is charged and ends with the judgment determining the charge, even if this decision is reached on appeal; whereas the European Court further decided that the question whether or not a certain period was reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention depended on the complexity of the case as a whole and the manner in which it had been handled by the judicial authorities;   Whereas the applicant simply relates that he was questioned by the police on .. September 1965, but does not indicate on what date he was first convicted by the Federal Court on .. August 1968;   Whereas, even assuming that the applicant was formally charged on.. September 1965, and that the period under consideration in the present case thus began to run on that date, the Commission finds that an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention.   Whereas the Commission considers that the particular nature and the large number of the offenses involved in the present case could, in the circumstances, justify the delay which did, in fact, occur in determining the criminal charges against the applicant;   Whereas it is further clear that, during the period concerned, the applicant was not kept in detention nor does he allege that he otherwise suffered any special effects as the result of the length of the criminal proceedings against him;   Whereas, for these reasons, the Commission finds that there is no breach of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention by reason of the length of the criminal proceedings concerned;   Whereas, therefore, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention,   Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE