Application No. 14762/89
                      by Arne TREHOLT
                      against Norway

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 6 July 1989, the following members being present:

             MM.  C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J. A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY
             Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

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

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

        Having regard to the application introduced on 6 February 1989
by Arne TREHOLT against Norway and registered on 8 March 1989 under
file No. 14762/89;

        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 of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.

        The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1942.  He is at
present serving a twenty year prison sentence.  Before the Commission
he is represented by Mr.  Ole Krarup, Copenhagen, Denmark.

        On 20 January 1984 the applicant was arrested and charged with
espionage.  On 20 June 1985 the applicant was found guilty of the
charge brought against him and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment
by the High Court (Eidsivating lagmannsrett).  The applicant appealed
against this judgment to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) but he later
withdrew his appeal.  Instead he applied to the High Court for the
reopening of his case.  However, his petition was rejected by the High
Court on 11 February 1988 and this decision was upheld by the Supreme
Court on 15 August 1988.


        The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention.  He is of
the opinion that this provision has been violated both during the
investigation of his case and during the trial in the High Court.


        The applicant has invoked Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
complaining that this provision was violated during the investigation
of his case and during his trial.

        However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or
not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a
violation of this provision as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention
provides that the Commission "may only deal with a matter ... within a
period of six months from the date on which the final decision was
taken". According to the Commission's established case-law the "final
decision" within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention
refers only to the final decision involved in the exhaustion of all
domestic remedies according to the generally recognised rules of
international law.  In this respect the Commission recalls that it has
constantly held that an application for the reopening of the
proceedings or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general
rule, be taken into account in the application of Article 26 (Art. 26)
of the Convention (cf. for example No. 10326/83, Dec. 6.10.83, D.R. 35
p. 218).

        The Commission finds that, in the present case, the
applicant's petition for a retrial was not an effective remedy under
the generally recognised rules of international law.  Consequently, the
decision regarding this petition cannot be taken into consideration
in determining the date of the final decision for the purpose of
applying the six months time-limit laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26).

        The final decision regarding his conviction and sentence is
accordingly the decision of the High Court which was given on
20 June 1985, whereas the present application was submitted to the
Commission on 6 February 1989, that is more than six months after the
date of this decision.  Furthermore, an examination of the case does
not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might
have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.

        It follows that the application has been introduced out of
time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

        For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission

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