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

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

                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

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

Having regard to the application introduced on 27 August 1985 by D.G.
against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 10 October
1985 under file No. 11797/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:


The applicant, a former lawyer and notary (Rechtsanwalt und Notar), is
a German citizen, born in 1923 and living in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler.

It follows from his statements and the documents submitted by him that
in April 1980 the applicant and the woman living with him (his
companion) took up residence in Kyrenia, Cyprus and subsequently
obtained a residence permit until 25 October 1980.

On 5 May 1980 the District Court (Amtsgericht) in Wiesbaden issued a
warrant of arrest against the applicant who was suspected of having
committed fraud by selling real estate investment certificates to some
three hundred persons and using the receipts for other purposes.  On
12 May 1980 another warrant of arrest was issued against the
applicant's companion who was likewise suspected of fraud.

In July 1980 the German prosecuting authority, having been informed
that the applicant and his companion were living in Kyrenia, contacted
the local Turkish-Cypriot authorities.  As no extradition treaty
existed the possibility of an expulsion was discussed.  On
31 July 1980 the applicant and his companion were arrested by the
Turkish-Cypriot police and taken to Mersia, Turkey, where they were
arrested by the Turkish police.  On 21 August 1980 the Embassy of the
German Federal Republic requested the Turkish Foreign Ministry to
extradite the applicant and his companion.

On 16 September 1980 the Embassy informed the Turkish authorities that
the warrant of arrest had been extended on 10 September 1980,
following written confessions obtained from the applicant.  The
extradition request was amended accordingly.  On 13 and
14 October 1980 the Turkish courts ordered the release of the
applicant and his companion.  They were, however, kept in police
custody and on 15 October 1980 handed over to German policemen at
Ankara Airport.   The German Embassy had shortly before been informed
by a telephone call that the extradition request had been granted and
that the corresponding written decision would be communicated
subsequently. This was done on 7 November 1980.

On 1 July 1983 the applicant was convicted by the Wiesbaden Regional
Court (Landgericht) of fraud (Betrug) and sentenced to four years'

In so far as the applicant had argued that the criminal proceedings
against him were barred because the German authorities had obtained
his expulsion to Turkey and his subsequent extradition by Turkey in an
unlawful manner, the Court stated that international treaties on
extradition only created rights and obligations between the
Contracting States.  Therefore a criminal court had no competence to
examine in the course of a trial against an extradited defendant
whether or not the extradition was in conformity with the extradition
treaty.  Furthermore the Court stated that the principle of speciality
(Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition) had not been
violated as the extradition request had been amended on
16 September 1980 and the extradition had in effect been granted with
regard to the charges on which the applicant had eventually been

On 27 April 1984 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected the
applicant's appeal (Revision).  It only quashed the sentence in so far
as the trial court had not decided to what extent the applicant's
detention abroad had to be credited towards sentence.

The proceedings against the applicant's companion were discontinued.

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions
given against him in the criminal proceedings.  This appeal was
rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal Constitutional
Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 28 February 1985 as offering no
prospects of success.  It is stated in the decision that the trial
court did not violate any constitutional rights in deciding that the
criminal proceedings were not barred by a possible violation of an
extradition treaty.

It is further stated that the warrants of arrest issued against the
applicant on 5 May 1980 and 10 September 1980 had not been arbitrary
and consequently it did not violate any constitutional rights that
subsequently an international search was requested by the German
authorities.  It likewise did not violate constitutional rights if the
applicant's expulsion from Cyprus had been provoked by a request of
the German authorities, as such request could have been justified, as
well as the subsequent request for the applicant's extradition, in
view of the warrant of arrest of 5 May 1980.

Finally it is stated that the Federal Republic of Germany was not
responsible for the applicant's detention in Turkey.  Therefore it was
of no relevance that the German authorities did not submit to the
Turkish authorities a declaration signed by the applicant in
August 1980 stating that he was prepared to return to the Federal
Republic voluntarily.

The applicant also brought an administrative court action against the
Federal Republic of Germany with a view to obtaining a declaratory
judgment that the German request causing his expulsion from Cyprus had
been unlawful.  The action was dismissed by the Cologne Administrative
Court (Verwaltungsgericht) on 22 August 1985.

It appears that a civil action for damages, which had been suspended
pending the administrative court proceedings, was likewise to no


The applicant complains:

that the German authorities unlawfully caused his and his companion's
expulsion from Cyprus and their deportation to Turkey; that the German
authorities denied them legal protection while they were in Turkey and
provoked their arrest and detention despite the decision of Turkish
tribunals ordering their release; and that the German authorities
unlawfully obtained their extradition;

that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced.

He alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 (art. 5, art. 6)
of the Convention and Article 3 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-3-2)
and various other provisions of international Conventions.


1.      The applicant first complained that the German authorities
caused his deportation from Cyprus to Turkey and subsequently
illegally obtained his extradition.  He has to this extent alleged a
violation of his right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 para. 1
(art. 5-1) of the Convention.  However, neither his arrest in, and
deportation from, Cyprus nor his detention in, and extradition by,
Turkey were effected by German authorities and these measures cannot
be held to involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic of
Germany under the Convention.  Furthermore it has not been established
that the applicant's arrest and detention prior to his extradition to
Germany had been unlawful.

Therefore the Commission has no competence ratione personae to examine
this complaint which is exclusively directed against the Federal
Republic of Germany.

It follows that in this respect the application is incompatible with
the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention (cf. No. 2472/65, Dec. 7.4.67,
Coll. 23 p. 42 <49>).

2.      The applicant also complained that he was wrongly convicted
and sentenced on 1 July 1983 by the Wiesbaden Regional Court and
submitted that the Court's proceedings were illegal.

With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant
complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19
(art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance
of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.  In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.  The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant
jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications
No. 458/59, Yearbook 3, pp. 222, 236 and No. 1140/61, Collection of
Decisions, 8, pp. 57, 62).

It is true that in this case the applicant also complains that the
German authorities obtained his extradition in an unlawful manner. In
this connection he alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention.

However, this provision only relates to the proceedings determining
the criminal charges against the applicant and not to the extradition
proceedings.  There is nothing to show that the guarantees contained
in Article 6 (art. 6) were not respected in the trial against the

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.

For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)