The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows:

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1947. At the time of
introducing his application he was detained in prison in Hannover. He
is represented by Mr. S., a barrister practising in Oldenburg.

From the statements and documents submitted by the applicant, it
appears that on .. December 1971 the applicant was convicted by the
Regional Court (Landgericht) in Oldenburg of having committed
aggravated robbery in a state of total intoxication (Articles 330a,
253, 1 (3) German Penal Code) and he was sentenced to two and a half
years' imprisonment. The Court justified the sentence on the ground
that on .. October 1971 the applicant, on his own admission had, in a
state of drunkenness and without motive, injured a taxi driver. The
applicant denies that he admitted this offence. On .. May 1972 the
Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's appeal
against his conviction and sentence on the ground that it was
ill-founded (Article 349 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).


The applicant now complains that he was wrongly sentenced. He alleges
that the reasoning of the Regional Court violated the Convention in
that the Court referred to an offence allegedly committed  by him on
.. October 1971. This, the applicant concludes results in a failure to
recognise the principle that everyone shall be presumed innocent until
proved guilty by law. Consequently, according to the applicant, the
Regional Court should not have taken into account the incident of ..
October 1971 in deciding on the severity of the sentence. He invokes
a violation of Article 6 (2) of the Convention.


The applicant has complained that the reasoning of the Regional Court
in deciding on the sentence violated Article 6 (2) (Art. 6-2) of the
Convention in that the Court referred to an offence allegedly committed
by him previously for which he had not yet been sentenced.

It is true that Article 6 (2) (Art. 6-2) of the Convention reserves to
everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law. However, a court of law
when imposing a sentence, takes into account facts which show the
convicted person's background. The previous conduct helps the court to
judge whether or not he deserves to be treated leniently or harshly.
In this connection courts often refer to the defendant's behaviour
towards his family or his conduct at work, or to previous convictions.
The only special point about the present case is that the Court
referred to a crime which had been committed after the original crime.
Yet he was not being tried for this second crime. It was merely treated
as an aggravation of his conduct and part of his background.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that the applicant had not provided
evidence that he had denied his confession to the second offence.

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been
submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article.

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

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION