CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 juillet 1991

.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. 18090/91                       by T.                       against the Netherlands             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 July 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                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 19 December 1990 by T. against the Netherlands and registered on 16 April 1991 under file No. 18090/91;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows: THE FACTS           The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows.           The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1968 and residing at Z., the Netherlands.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr.   Peter M. Kempees, a lawyer practising in The Hague.           The applicant was arrested on 22 May 1990 on suspicion of thefts and a violation of the Arms and Ammunition Act.   On the same day, at 14.15 hours, he was taken into custody (verzekering).   On 25 May 1990 around 15.00 hours, he was brought before an investigating judge (Rechter-Commissaris) in The Hague, who ordered his detention for six days.   On 30 May 1990, the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague ordered the applicant's detention on remand for a further period of 30 days.           The applicant appealed against the decision of 30 May 1990. In his appeal he argued that he had not been brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.   He also referred to a "guideline" issued by the Dutch superior public prosecutors (procureurs-generaal) on 22 March 1989, according to which public prosecutors were requested to present their requests for detention on remand at such time as to make it possible for the arrested person to appear before an investigating judge within 72 hours from the beginning of the custody.   The applicant noted that this time-limit had been exceeded in the present case.           In its decision of 19 June 1990 on the appeal, the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague stated that, even if the said "guideline" should be considered to lay down a rule which could be invoked by the suspect, this would not mean that the detention ordered by the investigating judge would be unlawful, since a deficiency attached to a previous stage of the custody could not be an independent ground for rejecting a subsequent request for detention on remand.   Nor were there, in the Court of Appeal's opinion, any very special circumstances which in the specific case could justify a different conclusion.   The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed the Regional Court's decision.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that he was not brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.     THE LAW           The applicant complains that, following his arrest on 22 May 1990, he was not brought promptly before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.           The Commission notes that the applicant was arrested on 22 May 1990 and was brought on 25 May 1990 before an investigating judge who ordered his detention for six days.   Against this decision no legal remedy was available.         However, after the Regional Court of The Hague, by decision of 30 May 1990, had prolonged the applicant's detention for a further period of 30 days, the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal of The Hague which rejected the appeal on 19 June 1990.           Even assuming that the application has been lodged within the six months time-limit provided for in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant was brought before a judge between 72 and 73 hours after his arrest and considers that in these circumstances the condition in Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) as to promptness was respected.           It follows that the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.             For these reasons, the Commission by a majority           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission               (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)