(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : 1 . The applicant, an Italian national and a trader, resided at the time of introducing his application in Agugliano (Ancona) where he was sûbject to a compulsory residence order. He was represented before the Commission by Mr. Michele Catalano, a member of the Milan Bar . 2. Together with other co-accused, he was arrested in April 1982 on a charge of an offence against the legislation on narcotics under a warrant issued on 29 April 1982. 258 3 . During the investigation the applicant was granted bail subject to the condition that he reported twice a week to the police . 4 . On 24 October 1983 the Milan Regional Court sentenced the applicant to 11 years and 6 ntonths' imprisonment . On 8 November 1983 the court, considering that there was a danger of his absconding, cancelled his bail and issued an arrest warrant against the applicant. The latter appealed to fae Court of Cassation which, on 30 January 1984, set aside the arrest warrant . The applicant vras then released . 5. In the meantime the Chief Constable of Milan and the Stale Prosecutor had applied to the court to issue a compulsory residence order against the appli,ant. 6. Afler two adjournments the hearing on these proceec.ings was held on 1 3 May 1984 . Oi the same day the court, under Section 6 of the Act of 27 December 1956, ordered the provisional arrest of the applicant at the hearing until the decision in the current proceedings had become enforceablelThe reusons given for this maasure were circumstaneea of partieular gravity justifying th e conclusion that it was sufficiently proved that the applicant constituted a danger to society . 'rhey included the followin; : - the evidence which the C'hief Constable and the Statc: Prosecutcr had described in their applications ;- fle applicant's conviction for offences against the legislation on narcotics -7te f•act that the applicant, who was suspected of being a member of a Inafiatype organisation, was shown by the documents on the file to have been engaged in interatioual drug-trafficking. 7. On 24 Mav 1984 the Milan Rep-ional Court made a comoulsorv residence order against the applicant who was immediately taken to the district chosen . COMPLAINTS 3 . The applicant complains of hi ; detentilon on remand at the hearing of 8 June 1984 . He. argues that it was not justified as he had regdarly complied with his obligation to report to the police and d :neyed the court surnmonses . Flis conviction, to L TheAet of 1956 provides various security rucasures against "persors constituting a dangerto public sah .- ly and morahty" . Section 3 makes it possible to order their compulsory residencc in a district if they conatitute a particular dangc.r . This measure is within the exclusive jutisdiction of the regional court . Thc decision is subject to appeal and to ar appeal in law to the Cnurt of Cassation . section 5 (t) of the Act provides that if the appGcation rclates to a compulsory residcnce order, the court may, for particularly scrious reagons, ordcr Ihe person concerned o be delaived until the .compulsoty residence ordcr becomes enforceable . ("Se la proposta riguarda la ntisura dobbligo del soggioroo in un (leterminato Comune, il presidentc del tribunae, nclla pendeuva del procedimento di oui allart . 4, secondo comma, puo' . ove sussistano inotivi di particolare gravilll, disporre con provvedimento motivam chc la persona dennm :iata sia tenot3 soao custoda in un carcere giudiziario, fino a qurndo non sia divenuta etecutira la misura di preven7ione" . . . .) 259 which the Milan Regional Court had referred, was subject to appeal and therefore not yet final . 9 . He considers that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. I of the Convention since his arrest at the hearing with a view to being taken to the compulsory residence district is not one of the cases exhaustively listed in that provision, particularly since eompulsory residence does not in itself involve detention . 10 . The applicant requests compensation under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention for his deprivation of liberty . 11 . Finally, he states that the measure complained of could not be appealed, partly because it was closely reasoned and partly because it was simply an application of Section 6 of the Act of 27 December 1956 . His application is, therefore, specifically directed against this provision because it was the basis on which he had been arrested and detained . THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains that his arrest on 8 May 1984 and the consequent detention were not compatible with Article 5 para . I of the Convention and further requests that he be granted compensation for the detention on the basis of Article 5 of the Convention . 2. The question raised by the instant case is whether it falls with one of the cases set out by the Convention in Article 5 para . 1 which contains an exhaustive list of the exceptions to the right to freedom enshrined in that provision (Eur . Court H .R., Guzzardi judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no . 39, paras. 92 and 96). 3. In this respect the Government raise the objection that the application is inadmissible on the ground that the applicant did not exhaust the domestic remedies . They contend that he should have appealed to the Court of Cassation against the decision ordering his arrest at the hearing, relying on Article 111 of the Italian Constitution . The applicant rejects this argument and maintains that the remedy suggeste d was ineffective in the instant case .4 . The Commission recalls that the rule . requiring exhaustion of the domesti c remedies (Article 26 of the Convention) demands the use only of such remedies as are sufficient, that is to say capable of providing redress for the applicant's complaints (Eur . Court H .R ., De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 Sune 1981, Series A no . 12, para . 60) .260 5. The detention the applicant complains of was imposed by a reasoneddecision given by the court in accordance with the law . What the applicentis now alleging is that the provision that was applied, namely, Section 6 of the 1956 Act, was itself contrar3 to Article 5 para . I of the Convention . 6 . The Cmvernment indeed had not maintained that a viohüion of Aiticle 5 para . 1 could have been alleged in the Court of Cassation . Tbis remedy would, moreover have been ineffective. In view of the most recent decisions of the Court of Cassation it is (loubtful wliether a litigant can effectively rely on the Convention in the Court of Cassation . For example, that court has held thai the provisions of the Convention relate exclitsively to future legislation i"natura meramente programmatica.") and therefore cannot alter existing legal provisions (in the instant case the provisions of the Code oP Criminal Procedure) (Cass . Sez . V, 12 .2.1982). The Court of Cassation has also held that the Conventiora binds the contracting parties and not individuals ("ha efficacia vincolante per le Parli Contraenti c non per i relativi iud(liti") and that therefore no violation of the Convention can be alleged in the appeal to the Court of Cassation (Cass . Sez. I, 28.4.1983)(c .f. also Cass. Sez. I, 23 .3.1984 : the Convention doee. not apply to internal legal relationships as it is of the nature of treaty law ("natura pattizia")) . 7. It r'ollows that an appeal on a point of law to the Court of C'assation against a decision, given reasons as required by the law, and whose legality was not disputed would have had no chance of success . 8. In these circumstances the Commission considers that an appeal on a point of law to ttie Court of Cassation would not have constituted an effeclive remedy in the present case and therefore the objection raised by the Government cannot be accepted . 9. It follows that the applieant han satisfied the conditions requirfng the exhaustion of the domestic reinedies (Article 2.6 of the Convention) . 10. As regards the merits of the order coinplained of, the Governinent concede that in the light of the European Court of flumaa Rights' jndgntent in rhe Guzzarcli case (above-cited judgment of 6 November 1980), it cannot be justified by any of the eases specified in Article 5 para. I of the Convention . The arguments they submit with a view to a possible reconsideration of thfs case-law show that the instant case raises complex problems in the field of the Convention lhe solution of which musi:, therefore, depend on an examination of the inerits oP the application . 11 . Relying on Article 5 para . 5 of the Convention ttie applicant applies for compensation for the detention suffered . 261 The Commission refers in this respect to its decision on the admissibility of application No . 9920/82 (Dec. 13 .3.84, D .R. 37 p. 75), and the friendly settlement adopted in that case on 11 May 1985(D .R. 42 p. 63). It recalls that the existence in Italian law of both a right to compensation on the basis of Article 5 para . 5 and the procedural means tor securing it is, in practice, far from being established with a sufficient degree of certainty . It therefore considers that the evaluation of this complaint, too, must depend on an examination of the merits . For these.reasons, the Commission, without prejudice to the merits DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE. 262