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 applications lodged by Mr Rolf Dobbertin against
France (Applications Nos. 9863/82 and 10924/84);
Whereas, on 4 February 1986, 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 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 applications introduced on 11 May 1982 and
12 April 1984, the applicant complained of the French courts' refusal
to set aside the inquiries into his alleged collusion with agents of a
foreign power, alleging a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3
(art. 5-3), of the convention, that his detention in police custody,
which was extended at forty-eight hour intervals by the Attorney
General and which totalled six days, also violated the convention,
since he was not brought promptly before a judge or other judicial
officer, as required by Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), and that
the length of his detention on remand, which lasted until 9 May 1983
(a total of four years and three and a half months) and which he
considered excessive, violated Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of
the convention;
Whereas the Commission, having declared admissible on 16 December 1983
and 6 December 1984 the complaints concerning the excessive duration
of the applicant's detention on remand and those concerning the
duration of police custody, and having joined the two applications, in
its report adopted on 4 December 1985 expressed the opinion, by ten
votes and one abstention, that there was a breach of Article 5,
paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention, since the applicant was not
brought "promptly" before an "officer authorised by law to exercise
judicial power" and, by ten votes and one abstention, that there was a
breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention, since
the applicant's detention exceeded the "reasonable time" specified in
that provision;
Having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,
paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention and having noted that the
majority of two-thirds required by Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention had not been attained neither on
whether there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3
(art. 5-3), of the convention since the applicant was not brought
"promptly" before an "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial
power" nor on whether there had been a violation of Article 5,
paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention since the applicant's
detention exceeded the "reasonable time" specified in that provision;
Decides that no further action is called for and accordingly removes
the examination of the case from its agenda.