The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention
relating to the application lodged by Mr Franco Caprino against the
United Kingdom (Application No. 6871/75);
Whereas on 30 October 1980 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention
has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
convention;
Whereas in his application introduced on 16 January 1975 the applicant
complained inter alia that the judicial review of the lawfulness of
his detention in view of his deportation was limited in scope and thus
in breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention;
Whereas the Commission, after having declared the application
admissible on 3 March 1978 considered, in its report adopted on
17 July 1980, that Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), envisages only
remedies available during the time of detention and that a remedy
available after release (claim of damages for false imprisonment) does
not therefore enter into account for the purposes of this provision,
that the convention does not require any judicial review of
deportation proceedings as such, and that the legal position under the
convention cannot be judged otherwise even if a deportation order
serves as the basis for detention, that the scope of the judicial
review of the deportation order by certiorari proceedings is therefore
irrelevant under Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), that a judicial
control of the lawfulness of the detention by "habeas corpus"
proceedings would have been available in the present case, but that
the applicant had failed to make use of this remedy or to indicate any
particular grounds for the unlawfulness of his detention which the
courts would not have investigated, that in these circumstances the
question whether the judicial review provided by this remedy would
have been sufficiently wide in scope was one which the Commission
could not consider merely on the basis of a hypothetical judgment;
Whereas the Commission has expressed the opinion in its report,
by 8 votes to 1 and 1 abstention that there has been no breach of
Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention in this case;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention,
Decides in this case there has been no violation of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.