Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1940 and at present
detained in prison at Hannover.

From his statements and from the documents submitted by him it appears
that on .. September, 1965 he was arrested on suspicion of having
committed robbery and aggravated theft. On .. June, 1966 he was
convicted on the charges of theft by the Regional Court (Landgericht)
at Hannover and sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment. The Court
considered that he had served this sentence by virtue of the period of
his imprisonment on remand since .. September, 1965.

The Applicant was not released from prison, however, as the charges
against him of robbery had been separated from the charges of severe
theft in the trial of .. June, 1966 on the ground that the person
injured by the alleged robbery, a Spaniard, had moved to Spain and was
not likely to return in the near future to give evidence of the offence
committed against him. The Applicant is still awaiting trial on the
former charges.

On .. June, 1966 the Applicant appealed to the Regional Court at
Hannover seeking his release from prison (Haftbeschwerde). On .. July,
1966 this court rejected the appeal on the grounds that there was
sufficient evidence before the investigating judge of the Applicant's
guilt and that the danger that the Applicant might flee (Fluchtgefahr)
still persisted. There was also a probability that the Applicant might
be committed to an insane asylum. The Court further stated that he
could not successfully assert an excessive detention on remand, as 8
months of his detention hitherto existing were counted towards his
sentence. Thus, there was also no necessity ex officio to present his
case to the Court of Appeal for a decision according to Sections 121,
122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung) regarding
the continuation of his detention on remand as, after deduction of the
period counted towards his sentence, the 6 months' limit had not been

In pursuance of this request the Applicant informed the Commission that
he lodged a further request with the Regional Court (Landgericht) at
Hannover to have the lawfulness of his detention examined
(Haftprüfung). This was rejected on .. September, 1966. The Court
stated that there was considerable burdening evidence given by his
alleged accomplices and that the danger of flight (Fluchtgefahr)
continued to exist. In particular, the latter was not put aside by
virtue of the fact that he was offered employment on a dairy farm.

On .. September, 1966 the Applicant addressed a letter to the Public
Prosecutor (Staatsanwalt) at Hannover alleging his innocence of the
robbery charge. He requested to be heard as a witness to this effect.
By letter of .. October, 1966 the Public Prosecutor replied that being
an accused he could not be heard as a witness to his own cause.

It further appears that, on .. November, 1966, the Applicant lodged a
request with the Presiding Judge of the First Criminal Chamber of the
Regional Court to fix a date for his trial. The Judge replied by letter
of .. November, 1966 that there could not be any trial until the victim
of the robbery had been examined in Spain and the Court was in
possession of the protocol concerning this examination.

From this statements and from documents submitted by the Applicant it
appears that, on .. November, 1966, the Regional Court (Landgericht)
in Hannover rejected his further application for conditional release
(Haftverschonung). On .. December, 1966 the Applicant appealed
(Beschwerde) against this decision to the Attorney General
(Generalstaatsanwalt) at Celle who apparently referred the matter to
the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at Celle. On .. December, 1966
this Court decided that the Applicant's detention on remand should
continue. The Court explained that its present decision was not an
examination of the lawfulness of the Applicant's detention in
accordance with Section 122, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (ex officio examination after each 3 months' detention on
remand), but a new examination in accordance with Section 121 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure calling for a first such examination within
6 months' detention. The Court reasoned, as had done the Regional Court
before, that the 6 months' period had not started to run until .. June,
1966, the date of the Applicant's conviction and sentence for
aggravated theft.

The Court held that the reasons for the Applicant's detention on remand
still persisted and that he could be expected under the circumstances
to accept the delay arising from the necessity to have a witness for
the prosecution examined in Spain.

The Applicant has not lodged a constitutional appeal
(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht). Upon the Secretariat's request for
information whether he had done so, he replied that it probably would
have been rejected as being inadmissible and would have caused a still
greater delay of the proceedings against him.

However, by letters of 16th and 28th February, 1967 the Applicant
informed the Commission that, in the meanwhile, he was convicted
(presumably by the Regional Court at Hannover on the charge of robbery
which had been separated from the charge of aggravated theft in the
trial of .. June, 1966) and sentenced to 4 1/2 years' imprisonment. He
does not indicate the date on which this decision was taken but states
that he appealed (Revision) against the judgment to the Federal Court.

The Applicant complains that in view of the fact that he did not commit
the alleged offenses, he was wrongly arrested and held in prison.

Without referring to any specific articles he alleges generally a
violation of the Convention.


Whereas, in respect of the Applicant's complaints relating to the
length of his detention on remand, the Commission has had regard to the
fact that, on .. June, 1966, the Applicant was convicted for aggravated
theft and that his detention on remand from .. September, 1965, up to
that date was taken into account in fixing his sentence;

Whereas therefore, as from .. June, 1966, a new period of detention
pending trial commenced, in respect of the charge preferred against him
for robbery; whereas it appears that, on or about .. February, 1967,
the Applicant was convicted on that charge and that the decision on
appeal is still pending; whereas, consequently, an examination of the
case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex
officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Article
5 (Art. 5); whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-
2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.