The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
1 December 1986, the following members being present:

                  MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                      E. BUSUTTIL
                      G. JÖRUNDSSON
                      S. TRECHSEL
                      B. KIERNAN
                      A. WEITZEL
                      J.C. SOYER
                      H.G. SCHERMERS
                      H. DANELIUS
                      G. BATLINER
                  Mrs G.H. THUNE
                  Sir Basil HALL
                   Mr F. MARTINEZ

                   Mr J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 February 1981 by
R.I. and L.S. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on
20 December 1984 under file No. 11320/85;

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 R.S. is a German citizen, born in 1940 and
living in Frankfurt/M.

The applicants I. and L.S., both German citizens, are apparently the
parents of R.S. and are represented by him. They were born in 1913 and
1907 respectively and are also living in Frankfurt/M.

I.      The first applicant's submissions as regards his complaints
may be summarised as follows:

1.      On 8 February 1977 the Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeits-
gericht) in Frankfurt/M. rejected an appeal lodged by the first
applicant against a judgment of the Frankfurt Labour Court
(Arbeitsgericht) dismissing his action by which he had contested the
lawfulness of the notice given to him by his employer.  His further
appeal to the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) was declared
inadmissible on 6 March 1979.  On 24 August 1980 the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) rejected the first
applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) as
inadmissible, being lodged out of time.

2.      On 29 October 1980 the Frankfurt Labour Court dismissed
another action brought by the first applicant against his former
employer claiming outstanding wages.

The first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the
fact that the Labour Court had disregarded his request to adjourn the
examination of his action.  The Federal Constitutional Court informed
him by letter of 29 December 1980 that a constitutional complaint
would not be admissible as long as the ordinary remedies had not been
exhausted.

3.      On 12 January 1982 the Frankfurt Regional Court (Landgericht)
rejected an appeal lodged by the first applicant concerning the forced
sale of certain real estate at the request of creditors.

The first applicant's constitutional complaint against the forced sale
and the decision of 12 January 1982 was rejected on 15 February 1982
as being inadmissible for lack of substantiation.

4.      On 17 March 1982 the first applicant was fined (Strafbefehl)
by the Frankfurt District Court (Amtsgericht) ten rates of 30 DM for
having committed fraud by sending seven letters to the Federal
Constitutional Court upon which already utilised stamps had been
attached.  The first applicant lodged an appeal (Einspruch) and was
summoned to appear at a hearing which was to take place on
18 June 1982.  It is stated in the summons that the appeal may be
rejected without taking of evidence if the defendant does not attend
the hearing without being excused.

On 18 June 1982 the case was adjourned and another hearing fixed for
30 July 1982.  The summons for this hearing contained the warning that
in case the accused failed to attend without justification, a warrant
to appear in court or even a warrant of arrest could be issued.

Meanwhile the first applicant had also been summoned to attend a
hearing on 11 June 1982 concerning a charge of having caused bodily
harm to his father.

In both matters the first applicant's requests to be defended by an
official defence counsel were rejected on the ground that the cases
did not raise any difficult factual or legal issues.  His appeals were
to no avail.

The first applicant did not attend the hearing of 11 June 1982. The
District Court fixed a new hearing which was also to take place on
30 July 1982.  The Court furthermore ordered that the applicant be
taken to this hearing by police force.  In consequence of this order
the applicant was apparently not summoned as it was left to the police
to take him to the hearing.

On 30 July 1982 the first applicant neither appeared at the hearing
concerning the fraud charge, nor was it possible for the police to
arrest him at his home with a view of assuring his attendance at the
hearing on the charge of having caused bodily harm. Consequently a
warrant of arrest was issued on 2 August 1982 stating that the first
applicant was strongly suspected of having committed fraud and bodily
harm and that he had not appeared at the oral hearings of
30 July 1982, although he had been properly summoned.  The warrant of
arrest was based on S. 230 para. 2 of the Code on Criminal Procedure
(Strafprozessordnung) providing detention on remand if a defendant
fails without justification to attend his trial.  Apparently the two
proceedings had in the meantime been joined by the District Court.

The first applicant appealed against the warrant of arrest stating
that he intended to attend the hearing in the fraud case.  As this
hearing was fixed for 12.00 hours he was surprised to hear from
neighbours that the police came to his home early in the morning.  The
news disturbed him to such an extent that he felt unable to attend the
hearing in the fraud case.  Allegedly he sent someone to the Court
with his excuses but this message did not reach the Court in time. The
appeal was rejected on 20 September 1982 by the Regional Court
(Landgericht).  The Court stated that the warrant of arrest was
justified as the first applicant, although summoned, had not attended
the trial fixed for 11 June 1982 and subsequently it had not been
possible to execute an order providing his being taken to court by the
police for the hearing on 30 July 1982.

The first applicant lodged a further appeal (weitere Beschwerde). On
18 October 1982 the Regional Court maintained its decision of
20 September 1982.

The first applicant was arrested on 1 November 1982 on the authority
of the warrant of arrest of 2 August 1982.  On 2 November 1982 the
District Court ordered that the applicant's detention should continue.
A hearing was fixed for 15 November and later postponed until
23 November 1982.

It appears that in view of this order of 2 November 1982 the Court of
Appeal no longer considered the applicant's further appeal concerning
the warrant of arrest of 2 August 1982 and stated that the applicant
should now appeal to the Regional Court from the order of
2 November 1982.  The applicant's appeal against the order of
2 November 1982 was rejected by the Regional Court on
19 November 1982. The Court stated that the question could be left
undecided whether or not it had been proportionate (verhältnismässig)
to arrest the applicant on 1 November 1982 while the trial was not to
start before 23 November 1982.  In any event it was not
disproportionate to maintain the detention four days before the trial
started.

At the hearing on 23 November 1982 he was represented by a chosen
counsel.  His request to have his chosen counsel appointed as official
defence counsel was rejected.  An appeal against this refusal was
rejected by the Regional Court on 14 December 1982.  It appears that
in consequence of the hearing of 23 November 1982 the proceedings
concerning the charge of bodily harm were discontinued while with
regard to the remaining charge of fraud the Court ordered a medical
expert to submit an expert opinion on the question whether the
applicant was criminally responsible.

On 8 February 1985 the first applicant's constitutional complaint
against the warrant of arrest and the Regional Court's decision of
19 November 1982 was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court as
offering no prospect of success.  The Court found that the warrant of
arrest was justified under S. 230 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and that there was nothing to show that the measure was
arbitrary.  The length of the first applicant's detention was not, in
the light of all circumstances of the case, disproportionate.

Another constitutional complaint concerning the decisions not to
appoint official defence counsels was rejected as being inadmissible.

5.      On 17 February 1984 the first applicant was fined by the
Frankfurt District Court for having insulted certain administrative
court judges.  On 26 June 1984 the Frankfurt Regional Court rejected
the applicant's appeal as the applicant did not attend the hearing.
On 10 July 1984 the same Court rejected the first applicant's request
to appoint an official defence counsel.  His appeals were to no avail.

On 29 November 1983 the first applicant was likewise fined for insult
of certain witnesses in criminal proceedings against him.  His appeal
remained unsuccessful.

The first applicant's constitutional complaint against the
aforementioned decisions was declared inadmissible on 18 November 1985
as lacking substantiation.

The first applicant then unsuccessfully tried to have criminal
proceedings instituted against several persons involved in the
aforementioned proceedings.

II.   The first applicant submits the following complaints on behalf
of I. and L.S.:

On 30 August 1983 the Frankfurt District Court, in two separate
decisions containing identical reasons, ordered, in accordance with
the relevant law (Hessisches Freiheitsentziehungsgesetz), that the two
applicants, who had been heard personally, be provisionally committed
to a closed ward of a mental hospital.  The Court stated that
according to a medical expert opinion the two applicants were in a bad
state of health and also suffered from senile dementia.

The first applicant lodged appeals on behalf of I. and L.S. against
the orders of 30 August 1983.  On 31 October 1983 the Regional Court
decided that the appeals had become without object as the period of
the provisional detention had ended.  The two further appeals were
rejected by the Frankfurt Court of Appeal on 15 November 1983 as being
inadmissible.  The constitutional complaint was rejected on 16
December 1983 as inadmissible because ordinary remedies were not
properly exhausted.

COMPLAINTS

I.    1.  The first applicant complains under Article 5 (Art. 5)
of the Convention of his detention on remand from 1 November to
23 November 1982.  He points out that the warning given in the summons
for the hearing of 30 July 1982 was insufficient and irrelevant.  The
courts wrongly considered that there had been no valid excuse for his
absence from the oral hearing of 30 July 1982.  In these circumstances
his arrest and detention were unlawful and arbitrary.

2.  Furthermore he complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that in the various proceedings before the German labour,
civil and criminal courts he had no fair hearing by an impartial
tribunal. Moreover no action was taken with regard to criminal charges
lodged by him against certain persons.  He also invokes Articles 3,
14, 17, 18 (Art. 3, art. 14, art. 17, art. 18) of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

II.    The applicants I. and L.S. complain that they were
wrongly and arbitrarily committed to a mental hospital.  They allege
violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18 (Art. 3, art. 5,
art. 6, art. 13, art. 14, art. 17, art. 18) of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains under Article 5 (Art. 5) of the
Convention of his detention on remand from 1 November to
23 November 1982 in order to enforce his attendance at the trial
of 23 November 1982.

It is true that the arrest and detention of a person effected for the
purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on
reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence must be "lawful"
and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" within the
meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.
However, the scope of review by the Convention organs is limited and
it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the
courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Eur. Court H.R.,
Winterwerp judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A No. 33, paras. 39 and
45/46; Bonazzi v. Italy, Comm. Report 19.3.81, para. 6, D.R. 24
p. 33; No. 9997/82, Dec. 7.12.82, D.R. 31 p. 245).

In the present case the German courts found that the first applicant's
detention on remand was lawful under S. 230 para. 2 of the German Code
of Criminal Procedure.  The Frankfurt Regional Court found in
particular that the first applicant had not shown that he had valid
reasons not to attend the hearings on 11 June 1982 and 30 July 1982.
The Commission does not find these decisions to be unreasonable and
is, therefore, satisfied that the first applicant's detention on
remand from 1 to 23 November 1982 was lawful within the meaning of
Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.

Moreover, the period of the first applicant's detention on remand
which lasted 23 days must not have exceeded the "reasonable time"
stipulated in Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.  The
Commission, in this respect, observes that the first applicant's
detention on remand was ordered to enforce his attendance at a trial
concerning charges of fraud and assault on the grounds that he had
twice failed to attend hearings though duly summoned and that on
30 July 1982 the police could not enforce the order that he be taken to
court.  The Federal Constitutional Court found in particular that the
length of the first applicant's detention on remand was not, in the
light of all circumstances of the case, disproportionate.  The
Commission considers that there is nothing in the case-file to
indicate that the length of the first applicant's detention on remand
was disproportionate and thus contrary to Article 5 para. 3
(Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.       The Commission has examined the applicant's further
complaints and the other applicants' complaints as they have been
submitted by them.  However, the Commission finds no appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that the application is, in these respects, manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)
of the Convention.

For this reason, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

           (J. RAYMOND)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)