CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 octobre 1987

.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. 12655/87                       by Leif RYDSTRÖM                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 October 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 13 October 1986 by Leif Rydström against Sweden and registered on 19 January 1987 under file N° 12655/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a Swedish citizen born in 1946.   He is a lawyer by profession and resides in Stockholm.           The applicant has previously submitted an application to the Commission in which he complained about his apprehension by two police officers at an underground station in Stockholm.   The Commission declared this application inadmissible on 9 October 1985 (No. 11470/85, Dec. 9.10.85, unpublished).           The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           On 11 May 1986 the applicant arrived at Helsingborg, Sweden, by ferry.   At the customs his car was taken out for inspection.   The applicant's car was taken to a garage in order to be searched, together with the applicant's luggage.   The applicant and a friend of his were in the meantime brought to a room where they remained during the search.   They were informed that the car and the luggage would be searched by a dog trained to find drugs.   The applicant was not present during the search of his car and his luggage.           No illegal goods were found and after approximately 45 minutes the applicant could leave.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that during the search of his car and luggage he was held illegally under arrest and he maintains that there is in Sweden no effective remedy which he could use in respect of such a complaint.   Furthermore, the applicant complains that the search of his luggage without his presence exposed him to a great risk of theft or any other loss of his property.   He invokes Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained that he was illegally held under arrest while his car and his luggage were being searched by the customs officials on his arrival in Sweden.   He invokes in this respect Article 5 of the Convention.           It is true that Article 5 of the Convention secures to everyone the right to liberty and security of person and provides that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the circumstances set out in Article 5 para. 1 (a) - (f).           However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision as, under Article 26 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law.           In the present case the applicant failed to bring an action against the State before the ordinary courts based on Section 3 of the Act on Compensation in Case of Restrictions of Liberty (lag om ersättning vid frihetsinskränkning) and has, therefore, not exhausted the remedies available to him under Swedish law.   Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.           It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of the application must accordingly be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.   2.       The applicant has furthermore complained that he did not have in Sweden any effective remedy in regard to his complaint that he was illegally held under arrest in the circumstances of the present case. He relies in this respect on Article 13 of the Convention.    It follows, however, from the Commission's above conclusion that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.   3.       The applicant has complained, finally, that the search of his luggage and his car exposed him to a great risk of theft or any other loss of property.   He invokes in this respect Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   However, the applicant has not substantiated that his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been violated.           It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.          For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE     Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission              (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)