APPLICATIQN/REQUÈTE N° 7697/76 X . v/BELGIUM X . c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 16 May 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISIQN du 16 mai 1977 sur la recevabilité de la requête Article 3 of the Convention : This provtsion can nor be interpreted as requiring particular economic and social measures for re/eased convicts. Article 3 de la Convention : Cette disposition ne peut être interprétée comme imposant des mesures économiques et sociales spécifiques en faveur des condamnés libérés. Résumé des faits pertinents (English : see p. 1951 Condamné en avril 1975 à une peine de pn'son pour enlévement de mineure , le requérant a été libéré en février 7977, dépourvu de ressources et sans emploi. EN DROIT IExtrait l Le requérant se plaint d'avoir été remis en liberté sans ressources . Il semble alléguer de ce fait la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, qui prohibe tout traitement inhumain ou dégradant . Cette disposition ne peut cependant ètre interprétée en l'espéce comme impôsant aux Parties Contractantes de prendre des mesures économiques et sociales spécifiques de nature à assurer un minimum vital ou un emploi aux personnes qui, comme le requérant, sont remises en liberté aprés une période de détention résultant d'une condamnation en matiére pénale . La requête est donc sous cet angle manifestement mal fondée au sens de l'article 27, § 2, de la Convention . - 194- In connection with this matter the applicant further alleges a violation of Article 2, § 2 of Protocol No . 4 which provides that "everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own" . However, paragraph 3 of that Article authorizes restriction on this freedom, "restriction .. . such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society . . . for the maintenance of . . . ordre public" . The refusal to release a person lawfully detained with a view to bringing him before the competent legal authority is obviously a lawful restriction within the meaning of the above-cited provision (cf . Decision on Applications No . 3962/69 v/Federal Republic of Germany, Collection 32, p . 68 ; No. 4256/69 v/Federal Republic of Germany, Collection 37, p . 67) . It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, § 2 of the Convention. The applicant further complains of having been prosecuted and convicted i n the Federal Republic of Germany for certain acts for which he had already been convicted in Belgium . While noting that the applicant was convicted for separate acts in the two countries- fraudulent misappropriation, sale with forged documents-the Commission recalls that the Convention guarantees neither expressly nor by implication the principle of "ne bis in idem" relied upon by the applicant (cf . Decision Application No . 1519/62 v/Austria Collection 10, p. 59) . The complaint is therefore inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, § 2 . - 193- Ç. Summary of the relevant facts Convicted and sentenced to prison in April 1975 for abductibn of a minor, rhe applicant was re/eased in February 1977, without any resources or employment . (TRANSLATION ) THE LAW IExtractl The applicant complains that he was released without resources . He appears to allege for this reason a violation of Article 3 of the Convention which forbids inhumain or degrading treatment . This provision can not, however, be interpreted in the present case as obliging the Contracting Parties to take particular economic and social measures in order to ensure a minimum subsistance payment or employment for persons, who, as in the case of the applicant, are released after a period of detention following a criminal conviction . It follows that the application, in this respect, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 paragraph 2 of the Convention. - 195 -