(TRANSLA T/ON) THE FACTS The f'acts of the case, as submitted by Ihe parties and not dispmed, may be sununariscd as (ollows. The appl icant, S ., born in 1950 at Liberco urt, was a French national ai the time of hin birth hy vinue uf the (act that both his parents had been born in a disvict ("département") of Aigeria, under French administration at the lime, and had French civil status under local law . He is currwUy under detention at Lantin (Belgium) and is represented before the Commission by Ms. Nathalie Carrère, a lawyer pract ising in Paris. Following his convictiun in Belgium for aggravated theft, the applieant escaped from the prison a( Nam ur, where he was servi ng a 15-year sentence of imprisonment , and touk refuge i n France. Having been arrested on 22 September 1979 and prosecuted for forgery, use of forged documents and falsification of cheques, the applicant was sentenced by the Douai Court of Appeal to a lerm of imprisonment which ended on 6 December 198 1 . In Ihe meantime, on 6 December 1979 , a Belgian request for extraditi on had been served o n him and he hud been placed under arrest pending extradition. In the contexi ol the extradition proceedings, the a pplicant appeared before khe ]ndicimems Chamber of the Montpellie r Court of Appeal on 1 0 June 19 80, when he opposed the extradition request. relying on his French nationalit y The Indictments Chumber reserved judgment on 1 7 June 1980 and invited the appl icant to prove his assertion before the competent civil co uns. On 15 ] uly 1 980, the applicant submitted to the Regional Co urt (tribunal de grande instance) a claim i ntended to establish his French nationality . When this claini was d ismissed, the applicant a ppealed to the Monipellier Court of Appeal, which upheld the first instance judgment on 1 June 1982 . The applicant appealed on 1 6 December 1982, and the Cou rt of Cassation rejected the appeal on 6 March 1984 . The competent courts found thut he had lost his French nationality on 1 January 1 963 by virt ue ofthe special prov ision of Section 1 (2) of the Law n f 20 December 1966 . During the course of the proceedings initiated for this purpoxe, the applicant - who since 6 December 198 1 had bcen held in detention only w ith a view to his exvadi(iun -- subniitted seve ral .ipplications for release, relying on Section 14 of thc Law of 1 0 March 1927, under wh ich "he i( he person concernedi niay be released al any stage of the proccedi ngs, in accord ance wilh the rules governi ng the matler" . 67 The Indictments Chamber of the Montpellier Court of Appeal rejected all the applicant's applications on the ground that he offered no serious guarantee of appearance for trial . The judgments on t his subject were date d 24 December 1 981, 18 March 1 982, 6 August 1 982, 28 September 1982, 22 Octobe r 1982, 2 4 November 1982, 5 ]anuary 1983, 2 February 1 983, 1 March 1983, I April 1983, 20 December 1983, 27 December 1983, Il January 1 984, 24 January 1984, 31 January 1984, 7 February 1984, 28 February 1984 and 13 March 1984 . W ith regard to the application for release submitted on 25 October 1982, which was exam ined at a hearing on 23 November 1 982 and rejected in a judgme nt of 24 November 1982, the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassa tion but did not submit any document establi shing the date of Ihe appeal and the co mplaints raised. Fullowing the te rmination, on 6 March 1984, of the civi l action which had interrupted the course of the extradition proceedings, the hcaring on the extradition proceed ings was resumed on 26 April 1984 . On 17 May 1984 , the Indictments Chamber of the Montpellier Court of Appeal approved the applicant's extradition. On 25 June 1 984, he was p laced at t he disposal of the Belgian aut horities by means of an extradit ion order issued by the Prime Minister, wh ich was notified to the applicant on 15 J uly 1 984 and to the Belgian authorities on 31 July 1 984. On 15 August 1984, the appl icant requested his release on the basis of Section 18 of the Law of 10 March 1927, under which :"If, within one month from the date of the notification of this instrument [the decree authorising extraditionj, the extradited person has not been received by the otficials of the requesting power, he shall be released and hi s extradition may no longer be demanded on the same grounds ." In this connec tion, he applied to the director of the prison, a bail iff, a lawycr and the dean of the investigating judges. He received no reply and was extradited to Belgium o n 23 August 1 984 . COMPLAINTS (Extract) He [alsoj compla ins of the excessive length of his detention which, from 6 December 198 1 , had no justification other than the req ues t for extradition of wh ich he was the subject . In this regard, he alleges a violation of Article 5 para . 3 of the Conven lion. 68 THE LAW (Extract) 2. The applicant complains [further] of the excessive length of his detention pending extradition and alleges a violation of Article 5 para . 3 of the Convention . The Commission will, however, examine this complaint under Article 5 para . I undcr which : ._ No one shall be deprived of his liberty save i n the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law : (t) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent bis effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or uf a person against whom action is being takcn with a view to deportation or extradition . " On this point, the Gove rnment plead inadmissibility on the ground of non- exhaustion of domestic remedies, inasmuch as the a pplieant neither appealed to the Court of Cassation against the w hole array of judgments rejecting his applications for release nor l odged a c laim for compensation with the domestic courts. As regards the first objection to admissibility raised by the Government con- cerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant has admitted that he did not appeal to the Court of Cassation against all the judgments of the Indictments Chamber rejecting his appl ications for release. The Commissio n has, however, already concluded that an applicant who had unsuccessfully submitted complaints and did not renew such coinplaints was relieved of his obligations under Article 2 6 o( the Convention (cf. No. 561 3/72, Dec . 5.3 .76, D. R. 4 p. 177). [t considered in another case that "it would be excessively fo rmalistic to expect the applicant . . . to have appealed twice to the Court of Cassation - o nce concerning an application for bail, and again concerning an application for final release on expi ry of the maximum period" (cf. No. 7438/76, Dec. 9 .3.78, D.R. 1 2 pp. 38, 46). The Commission concludes in the present case that it was not necessary for the applicant to appeal to the Court of Cassation against all the judgments of the Indict- ments Chamber refusing his release. Consequently, the objection cannot be accepted . The Government also claim that the appl icant did not use ihe remedy ava i lable under Section L781 .1 of the Administration of Justice Act which, under French law, makes it possible to clai m damages from the State in respect of the defective operation of the administration of justice. 69 The Commiss ion recalls that it has exam ined this possibility a fforded by Fre nch la w, in particular in the case of Woukam Moudefo v . F rance (No . I0868/84, Dec . 2 L L 87. D.R. 5 1 pp . 62 . 81) . The Commission considered " that an action for damages against the State founded on Ihe defective operation of the adminisvation of juslice is intended to obtain compensation for damage resulting from detention and not to ublain release from deiemion . . . therefore . . . the fact that an applicant w ho complains of the excessive leng(h of h3s detention on remand has not instituted such an ac i ion has no bearing on the quest ion of exhaustion of domestic remedies" . The Commission considers therefore that, in the present case, ihe applicant was not obliged to resort to this procedure in order to exhaust the domestic remedies . The objection cannot therefore be accep ted. As to the merits, the Commission recalls that, if the extradition proceed ings are not conducted with the requisite di ligence or i f the continued detention is due to an abuse of authority, that detention ceases to be justified under Article 5 para. 1(f) (cf. No. 73 1 7/75, Dec. 6. 10.76, D. R. 6 p. 141 and No. 91 72/80, Dec . 1 7.12 .8 1 , D .R . 27 p . 222). In this case the applican t, havi ng been arrested on 22 September 1979, first aerved a se n[encz intpose d by a F rench court, which end ed on 6 Decembzr 198 1 , th is period o f dece ntion being covered by Article 5 para. I (a) . The period d uring which the applicant was detained solely for extradition pu rpoties thus begins u n 6 Decembe r 198 1 and ends on 23 Augus t 1984, ihe date on wh ich Ihe applicant was hande d ove r to the Belgian authorities, so that it lasied iw u years and eight months . The Government, for t heir part, rely on the complexity of the case and the conduci of the applicant . With regard to the total duration of the extradition proceedings n~ such , the Commission notes ihat there is no evidence in the file to suggest thni ihey were not conducted with the necessary diligence. These proceedings were i nterrupted following thc applicant's decla rations concerning his nationality . However , the Commission does not find any delay in the conduct of the proceedings before the civil courts in connection wit h the question of nationality. lt observes that these proceedings passed through three levels of jurisdiction . In [he light of all these facts, the Commission considers that no violation of A rtic le 5 para. I (f) can be detected in this case in connection with the length of the appl icanl's detention for extradition purposes. [t follows that this part of the application is manifestly i ll-founded and must be rejected in accordance w ith Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention . 70