APPLICATION/REQUÊTE N" 11352/85 K. v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY K. ciRÉPUBLIQUE FÉDÉRALE D'ALLEMAGNE DECISION of 10 December 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 10 décembre 1985 sur la recevabilité de la requêt e Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : In reaching the conclusion that tkis provision does noi apply to proceedings deciding on a compensaUion claim for detention on r'emand followed by the abandonment of criminal proceedings, the Co,mmission relies on the fact that, on the one hand, the relevant nationad legislation cannot be assimilated or comparèd with the law on civil liability, and, on the other hand, according te the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the right to liberty is not a civil right. Article rS, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Pour arriver à la conclusion que cette disposition ne s'applique pas à la procédure relative à une demanaé d'indemnisation après détention préventive suivie d'un abandon des poursuite.i, la Commission s'appuie sur' le fâit, d'une part que la dégishxtion nationale,oertineme est exorbitante du droi~` commun sur la respon!~abilité civile, et d'autre pan que, seion la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Honame, le droit à la liberté n'est pas un droit de caractère civl . THE FACTS (Extract) (français : voir p. 275) The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1941 and living in Istanbul : Heis represented by Messrs Wingerter and Hohbach, lawyers in Heilbronn .Itfolowsfromtheapplicant'sstatementsandthedocumentssubmitedbyhit n Ihat on his airrival in the Federal Republic of Germany on 9 Decentber 1983 he was 213 arrested and remanded in prison on the authority of a warrant of arrest. On 11 January 1984 he was released . On 2 January 1984 he was ordered to pay a fine of 40 day rates in the amount of DM 50 each, i .e. a total of DM 2,000, for having committed forgery (Urkundenfïlschung) . The applicant lodged an appeal (Einspruch). On 2 May 1984 the Vaihingen District Court (Amtsgericht) gave the following order : 1 . The proceedings are discontinued in accordance with Section 153 (2) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (StPO) . 2. The costs of the proceedings are imposed on the Treasury in accordance with Section 467 (1) StPO . The applicant's necessary expenses are reimbursed (Section 467 (5) StPO) . 3. No compensation is granted for detention on remand . The applicant lodged an appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) against the order of 2 May 1984 to the extent that it denied compensation. On 19 June 1984 the appeal was rejected by the Heilbronn Regional Court (Landgericht) as being inadmissible (unzultissig). The Court stated that the decision on compensation was ancillary (Nebenentscheidung) to the decision on the merits, i .e. the decision to discontinue the proceedings. As no appeal did lie with regard to the principal decision the ancillary decision could likewise not be appealed from . The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint which was rejected on 20 July 1984 by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) as offering no prospects of success . The decision was served on the applicant on 27 July 1984 .. . THE LAW (Extract) 1. The applicant has complained that he was denied compensation for his arrest and detention on remand by the Regional Court in a decision containing no reasons and which could not be appealed from . He has first invoked Article 6 para . 1 of the Convention which secures to everyone the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of a criminal charge against .him . In the present case the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued and the criminal charge was consequently not determined. It remains to be decided whether a claim for compensation utiderthe German Aet~on Compensation in Criminal Matters (StrEG) can be considered as a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 . The Commission has ina previous decision (No . 9661/82, Dec. 14 .7.83, D.R. 34 p. 127) stated with regard to claims for compensatiouunder th e 274 Austrian Act on Compensation in Criminal Matters (StEG) :"Claims under the Act in quest.on do not require that a public official acted in a guilty inanner . Compensation may even be obtained although the law has not been violated . Thus the dairns under the Si:EG are in no way assimilated or comparable to private law claims for damages relating to tort liability . Furthermore it has to tie note(I that the right to liberty, interferencas with which can be eoinpensated according u) the StEG, is not a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (Eur. Court H_R., Neumeister judgment of 27 .6 .68, Series A no . 8, p. 43 para . 23) ." For the sanie reasons Ihe Commission considers that no civil right is involved in the present case . Article 6 is therefore nol applicable wïth regard to the proceedings in qcestion and this particular complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione mcneriae ,,vith the provisions of the Convent on within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2.