AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24530/94
by Stefco VODENICAROV
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President
MM. J.-C. GEUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
A. ARABADJIEV
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 27 September 1993
by Mr. Stefco Vodenicarov against the Slovak Republic and registered
on 4 July 1994 under file No. 24530/94;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
22 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 22 April 1996 and 12 August 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Bulgarian national born in 1946. He is a
driver and resides in Hlohovec, the Slovak Republic.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
A. The particular circumstances of the case
In 1992 the applicant received a temporary job in Germany through
the Trnava Labour Office (Okresny úrad práce). He was dismissed. The
applicant claimed damages from the Labour Office. He was informed that
any claim he had should be lodged with the appropriate German court.
The applicant was involved in several conflicts with his
colleagues and neighbours. The police and the local authority refused
to investigate the applicant's complaints, and the co-operative which
owns the block of flats where the applicant lives refused to arrange
for damages to be paid to the applicant.
According to the applicant, on 16 February 1994 his wife was
assaulted by Mrs. D., a neighbour. He pursued the neighbour but she
managed to escape. The applicant and his wife unsuccessfully tried to
have criminal proceedings instituted against Mrs. D.
On 24 May 1994 the Piestany Local Office (Obvodny úrad) found the
applicant guilty of a minor offence against civic propriety in that on
16 February 1994 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D. in front of their
house. The applicant was reprimanded and charged the fees of the
proceedings. On 14 July 1994 the Trnava District Office (Okresny úrad)
upheld this decision.
In the meantime, on 30 June 1994 the applicant had been heard in
the police station. He read a statement of Mrs. T. according to which
on 16 February 1994 he had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance
of their house, a medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from
16 February 1994 and a petition signed by eleven neighbours submitting
that on 7 April 1993 he had verbally insulted Mrs. D.
On 30 September 1994 the Trnava District Prosecutor (Okresny
prokurátor) charged the applicant with assault causing bodily harm on
the ground that on 16 February 1994 he had several times hit Mrs. D.
at the door of her flat.
On 12 October 1994 the Trnava District Court (Okresny súd) issued
a sentence order (trestny rozkaz) by which the applicant was
conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment. On 31 October
1994 he was ordered to pay damages to Mrs. D. He challenged both
orders. Subsequently, the sentence order was cancelled and a hearing
was ordered. Mrs. D. joined the criminal proceedings with a claim for
damages.
On 5 December 1994 a hearing was held. However, the applicant
behaved noisily, insulted the participants and refused to obey the
judge. He had to be removed and the hearing was adjourned.
On 12 January 1995 the President of the Trnava District Court
requested a transfer of the case to another court as it was probable
that the applicant would be charged with contempt of court. The
Bratislava Regional Court (Krajsky súd) dismissed the request as the
District Court should have proceeded pursuant to Sections 66 and 204
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law).
A further hearing was held on 21 February 1995 before a single
judge at the Trnava District Court. Before it began the applicant had
shouted at Mrs. D. and refused to enter the dock, using rude
expressions. Since he did not respect the warnings, the judge ordered
his removal pursuant to Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The hearing was held in the applicant's absence. His statement from
the preliminary proceedings was read out.
The applicant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. He
was conditionally sentenced to five months' imprisonment and ordered
to pay damages to Mrs. D. The court relied on the evidence of Mrs. D.,
on the statement of Mrs. T. and on that of Mr. H. who accompanied
Mrs. D. to hospital.
On 2 March 1995 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
He referred to the documents before the court and claimed that
Mrs. D.'s submissions as to when and how the accident had occurred were
not consistent. He pointed out, inter alia, that according to the
prosecution he had attacked Mrs. D. at the door of her flat which is
situated above the applicant's first floor flat. However, according
to the first instance judgment the offence was committed at the main
entrance of the house, i.e. on the ground floor. The applicant argued
that the first instance court had ignored his request to hear other
neighbours as witnesses.
On 30 March 1995, the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the
appeal. The hearing was held in the applicant's absence. The Court
ordered the applicant to be removed pursuant to Section 204 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure as he had refused to enter the dock, made
comments without having been given the floor and ignored the warnings
of the President of the Chamber (Predseda senátu). The applicant's
wife attended the hearing but was not allowed to address the Court.
On 12 May 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office (Úrad
vysetrovania) charged the applicant with contempt of court which he was
alleged to have committed on 5 December 1994.
On 16 May 1995 the Trnava District Court ordered a psychiatric
examination of the applicant. The applicant submitted a certificate
from a Bulgarian doctor and refused to be examined by appointed experts
in an out-patient department.
On 5 and 7 June 1995 the applicant sought redress with the
Constitutional Court (Ústavny súd) challenging the unfairness of the
criminal proceedings. On 17 July 1995 he was informed that the
Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to alter or quash the decisions
of general courts or to interfere with their jurisdiction. He was
further informed that the Constitutional Court cannot examine whether
the counts of the prosecution were lawful.
In the meantime, on 11 July 1995, the Trnava District Court
ordered the applicant to be observed in mental hospital pursuant to
Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see relevant
domestic law). On 12 July 1995 the Trnava Investigation Office
appointed two experts. The applicant received both decisions on
14 July 1995, and on 15 July 1995 he challenged them. On 17 July 1995
the mental hospital summoned him for 20 July 1995.
In the morning of 19 July 1995 the applicant was handcuffed and
escorted by the police to a mental hospital. No warrant was presented.
The applicant was confined in the hospital until 18 August 1995. From
11 to 13 August 1995 he was granted leave.
On 27 July 1995 the Trnava District Prosecutor rejected the
applicant's complaint against the Investigation Office's decision of
12 July 1995.
On 28 July 1995 the applicant's wife informed the General
Prosecutor (Generálny prokurátor) that on 19 July 1995 the applicant
had been confined in the mental hospital although he had appealed
against the Trnava District Court's order of 11 July 1995 as well as
the Trnava Investigation Office's order of 12 July 1995. She claimed
that the applicant's placement in the mental hospital was illegal.
On 17 August 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the
applicant's complaint against the Trnava District Court's order of
11 July 1995. The applicant was not notified.
By letter of 30 August 1995, served on the applicant's wife on
10 September 1995, the General Prosecutor informed the applicant's wife
that her complaint had been referred, for reason of competence, to the
Bratislava Regional Prosecutor (Krajsky prokurátor).
The same day, the prosecution for contempt of court was stayed
with reference to experts' conclusion that the applicant's personality
suffered from a permanent disorder which had prevented him from
controlling his behaviour before the Trnava District Court during the
hearing of 5 December 1994.
On 5 September 1995 the applicant lodged a complaint against the
decision to stay the proceedings. He challenged the experts'
conclusion and claimed damages.
By letter of 21 September 1995 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor
informed the applicant's wife that her complaint was sent, for reason
of competence, to the Trnava District Prosecutor.
B. The relevant domestic law
The following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
relevant in the applicant's case.
Pursuant to Section 66 para. 1 the President of a court's chamber
can impose a fine of up to 50,000 crowns on persons who disturb
proceedings notwithstanding that they have been warned, or who offend
the court or who disobey, without having offered a sufficient apology,
orders issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to Section 204, the President of a court's chamber can
order that persons who disturb order be removed from the court room.
The removal of the accused can be ordered only by a chamber's decision,
for such period as is absolutely necessary and after prior warning.
After the accused has been allowed to re-enter the court room the
President of the chamber shall inform him or her of the substance of
the proceedings held in his or her absence so that he or she can make
a comment.
Under Section 314(a) para. 1 if a case concerns an offence
punishable with not more than five years' imprisonment, the proceedings
are led by a single judge. Section 314(b) para. 1 vests in a single
judge the same rights and obligations as has a court chamber and its
President.
Section 116 para. 1 provides for appointment, upon a written
order by the court, of two psychiatric experts when there is a need to
examine the mental health of an accused.
Pursuant to para. 2, if the mental health of an accused cannot
be examined in another way, the court can order that he or she be
observed in an institution. Such an order can be issued in preliminary
proceedings by the judge upon the proposal of the public prosecutor.
The order can be challenged by a complaint which has suspensive effect.
According to Section 90 para. 2, the accused can be brought also
without a prior summons, if it is necessary for the purposes of
criminal proceedings, particularly, where the accused is in hiding or
has no permanent address.
Section 36 para. 1 (a) provides that an accused shall be
represented by a lawyer at the stage of preliminary proceedings if,
inter alia, he or she is being observed in an institution pursuant to
Section 116 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to Section 167, the accused has the right to submit a
petition, at any time during the investigation, to the public
prosecutor that any wrong procedure of an investigator be brought in
order as appropriate. Such petition, to which no statute of limitation
applies, must be immediately submitted to the public prosecutor who
shall deal with the matter without any delay, and inform the petitioner
about the findings of the review.
Section 117 provides that observation of mental health should not
last longer than two months; by that time a medical report must be
submitted. If justified by the findings of an expert witness, this
time can be prolonged by the court, or, during pre-trial proceedings,
by the public prosecutor or the investigator with consent of the
prosecutor, for a maximum period of one month. Such prolongation is
subject to an admissible complaint.
According to Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act
No. 60/1965 as amended, a public prosecutor must immediately release
any person in unlawful detention.
According to Article 130 para. 3, the Constitutional Court may
commence proceedings upon the "podnet" presented by an individual or
a corporation claiming to have rights violated.
Article 17 paras. 1 and 2 provides that "personal liberty of
every individual shall be guaranteed and no one shall be prosecuted or
deprived of liberty unless for reasons and by methods set by law".
According to paragraph 7, "a psychological examination of the person
charged with an offence is permissible only on a written court order".
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not
arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered as a consequence
of his dismissal in Germany. He further complains that the Slovak
authorities refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor
offences and offences against his family and that the co-operative did
not arrange for paying him damages.
The applicant also alleges that the criminal proceedings leading
to his conviction of assault and the detention in mental hospital were
unlawful and violated his human rights. In particular, he claims that
he was convicted in his absence, that the Bratislava Regional Court
refused his request to hear further witnesses and did not consider all
his submissions in his appeal. He considers that he has been
discriminated against on the ground of his nationality. In substance,
he alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4, Article 6 para. 1
and Article 14 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 27 September 1993 and
registered on 4 July 1994.
On 17 January 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48
para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
22 March 1996. The applicant replied on 22 April 1996 and supplemented
his submissions on 12 August 1996.
On 16 April 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.
By letter of 30 August 1996 the applicant informed the Secretariat that
he wished to present his case himself.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the Trnava Labour Office did not
arrange for compensation for damage he had suffered by his dismissal
in Germany.
The Commission observes that the applicant was employed by a
private German company. The Trnava Labour Office was only the
intermediary and cannot be responsible for the applicant's dismissal
and, consequently, for any damage suffered. Moreover, the Labour
Office informed the applicant that any claim should be lodged with the
appropriate German court.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that this situation
does not involve any responsibility of the Slovak authorities.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that the Slovak authorities
refused to prosecute persons who had committed minor offences and
offences against his family and that the co-operative owning the house
in which he lives did not arrange for paying damages to him.
Insofar as the applicant complains about the refusal of the
Slovak authorities to prosecute certain persons, the Commission recalls
that the Convention does not guarantee a right to have criminal
proceedings instituted against third persons (cf. No. 9777/82, Dec.
14.7.83, D.R. 34, p. 158; No. 23997/94, Dec. 15.5.95, D.R. 81, p. 102).
Therefore, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention.
Insofar as the applicant complains against the co-operative, the
Commission recalls that under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention,
it may only receive an application from a person, non-governmental
organisation or group of individuals where the applicant alleges a
violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms
set out in the Convention (cf. No. 12327/86, Dec. 11.10.88, D.R. 58,
p. 85). The Commission may not, therefore, receive applications
directed against private individuals or private non-state subjects,
such as the co-operative in question. Accordingly, this complaint is
incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.
It follows that this part of application must be rejected
according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicant also alleges that he was convicted in his absence.
In substance, he alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...
...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:
...
c. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of
his own choosing ...;
..."
The Government hold that all requirements contained in Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention had been complied with.
They submit that the applicant was able to defend his case in the
public hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court, make motions of
additional evidence, comment on the facts presented and make other
motions. He deprived himself of this right because he disturbed the
proceedings in an unacceptable manner. He was removed from the court
room in accordance with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
as he failed to behave properly, despite previous warnings about
possible consequences given by the President of the Chamber. Moreover,
before the final statement, he was called back to the court room but
he had already left the Court building.
The applicant contests the Government's observations. He disputes
the Government's allegation that the President of the Chamber at the
Bratislava Regional Court on 30 March 1995 asked him to return to the
court room in order to give his comments on the proceedings, because
it was the President himself who ordered police officers to take him
out of the court building. He also submits that during the hearing of
30 March 1995 at the Bratislava Regional Court, the President refused
to give his wife the floor, although she asked for it twice. In the
record of the public hearing there is no mention of it.
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 6
paras. 1 and 3 (c) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-c) of the Convention without the
further observations of both parties.
4. The applicant claims that the courts refused to hear eleven
neighbours who had signed the petition against him and that the
Bratislava Regional Court did not consider all his submissions
presented in his appeal. He invokes, in substance, Article 6 paras. 1
and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d) of the Convention, which provides:
"1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...
...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:
...
d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf
under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
..."
The Government submit that the Regional Court did consider all
the allegations contained in the applicant's appeal and thereupon made
the conclusion as shown in the reasons attached to its decision. The
Court did not consider it necessary to call new witnesses; the
applicant's appeal did not contain any motion requesting the
examination of persons from other flats who had signed the petition
against him. Neither the evidence of these persons, nor their petition
was relevant to the offence which the applicant had been convicted of,
and it was not necessary to examine further witnesses: the Regional
Court could have either overruled the decision of the Trnava District
Court and transferred the matter for retrial in the original court
where such presentation of all necessary evidence would have been made
upon which a new decision would have been announced, or it could have
examined the evidence on its own motion.
The applicant maintains that the Bratislava Regional Court did
not examine all the arguments given in the appeal and did not deal with
them. He submits that on 27 March 1995 he personally asked the judge
to summon the witnesses, but the judge refused to do so. In the
applicant's view, the Bratislava Regional Court as well as the Trnava
District Court, the prosecutor and the police, adopted a superficial,
irresponsible, biased attitude to the case and repeatedly violated
Slovak laws and the Convention.
The Commission recalls that the rules governing the admissibility
of evidence are in the first place a matter for domestic courts. The
Commission's task, under the Convention, is to ascertain whether the
proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence
was taken, were fair (cf. Eur. Court HR, Edwards v. the United Kingdom
judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, para. 4
and Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C,
p. 56, para. 43).
In the present case, the Commission notes that the neighbours'
petition concerned the incident of 7 April 1993 and not that of
16 February 1994. Besides, it is not clear whether the petition
constituted an item of evidence on which the first instance Court based
the applicant's conviction because only the Regional Court mentioned
it in its judgment as a part of the case file.
In any event, the applicant read the petition on 30 June 1994 at
the police station where he had the opportunity to discuss it.
Afterwards, he submitted his written observations.
Above all, the courts based their judgments on the applicant's
statement from the preliminary proceedings, on the evidence of Mrs. D.,
on the statement of Mrs. T., according to which on 16 February 1994 the
applicant had repeatedly hit Mrs. D. at the main entrance of their
house, on that of Mr. H., who accompanied Mrs. D. to hospital, and on
the medical certificate about Mrs. D.'s injuries from 16 February 1994.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the fact that
the courts refused to hear further witnesses proposed by the applicant
did not deprive him of a fair trial. In addition, the Commission
considers that there is no appearance that the appeal proceedings
before the Bratislava Regional Court were otherwise unfair.
It follows that this part of application is manifestly ill-
founded and must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
5. The applicant claims that his detention in a mental hospital was
illegal and arbitrary. In substance, he alleges a violation of
Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention.
The Government object that the applicant did not exhaust all
domestic remedies. He could have, under Section 167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law), submitted a petition
to a public prosecutor immediately after his placement in the mental
hospital, seeking remedy for the wrong procedure that may have
occurred. The public prosecutor would have applied the procedure laid
down in Section 25 para. 2 of the Public Prosecutors Act No. 60/1965
(see relevant domestic law). In the Government's view, there is no
doubt that a public prosecutor would have ordered the release of the
applicant from the mental hospital as the applicant had been placed
there prior to an effective judicial decision. Such order would have
resulted not only in the applicant's release but it would have entitled
him to recover damages for the wrong procedure applied by the
investigator.
The Government note that the public prosecutor could consider
this matter even now. Accordingly, the applicant still has a chance
to lodge such a petition which may have a significant impact on the
recovery of damages. The Government further submit that there would
have been no order issued for the applicant's observation in mental
hospital, had he not failed to communicate with the appointed medical
experts and undergo an out-patient examination. Moreover, the medical
findings of the applicant's mental health resulted in the stay of his
prosecution and, as soon as a medical report had been presented, the
applicant was released from the hospital.
The Government also submit that the applicant could, and still
can, file a "podnet" to the Constitutional Court under Article 130
para. 3 of the Constitution (see relevant domestic law) and claim that,
in breach of his constitutional right, he was deprived of personal
liberty guaranteed by Article 17 paras. 1 and 7 of the Constitution
(see relevant domestic law). A ruling of the Constitutional Court that
the applicant's personal liberty has been violated would give rise to
a right to recover damages.
The applicant claims that all remedies have been exhausted in his
case.
As regards the merits, the Government claim that the applicant's
placement in the mental hospital was compatible with Article 5 para. 1
(Art. 5-1) of the Convention. On 19 July 1995 he was brought to the
medical institution by the investigator who, having received a decision
of the Trnava District Court which had not yet become effective,
ordered the applicant to be taken to the hospital because his previous
conduct made it unlikely that he would appear voluntarily. The
examination of his mental health was required for the purposes of
criminal proceedings. In addition, the investigating office believed
that the applicant was insane at the time of the commission of the
crime, a circumstance constituting a ground for the stay of the
prosecution.
The Government state that in bringing the applicant to the mental
hospital, the investigator applied Section 90 para. 2 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (see relevant domestic law). The summons was
delivered to the applicant on 20 July 1995 by a head of the medical
staff of the hospital, who was one of the two experts appointed to give
evidence based on the results of the examination of the applicant's
mental health. He delivered the summons with regard to his medical
schedule and was informed about the procedure taken by the office of
investigation. The Government specify that a medical summons is not
a decision made within criminal proceedings, but a routine doctor-
patient communication. Therefore, the Government contend that the time
difference between the factual escorting of the applicant to the
hospital, i.e. 19 July 1995, and the medical summons issued by the head
of medical staff, i.e. 20 July 1995, is irrelevant.
The Government, referring to the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp
v. Belgium case (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A
no. 12), note that the decision on medical observation in the mental
hospital was made directly by the Court complying with the conditions
under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention. They point out
that the observation of mental health is, in any event, limited by time
according to Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see
relevant domestic law). Moreover, the applicant could, at any time
during this period, have requested the public prosecutor to protect his
rights, if he believed his rights had not been respected. He did not
make such a request.
With regard to the absence of the applicant's representative
during his placement in the hospital, the Government submit that under
Section 36 para. 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any person
who has been placed in a medical institution for mental observation has
the right to be represented by counsel from the moment of his placement
in the mental hospital regardless of whether the person agreed with the
legal representation or not. The applicant had the right to choose his
mandatory counsel. The Government observe that no mandatory counsel
was appointed, but if he had insisted, he could have been represented
by counsel of his choice. With regard to his assets, he was very
likely to obtain free legal aid. In addition, the applicant neither
objected to the absence of mandatory representation nor did he request
a lawyer of his choice.
The Government further maintain that the requirement of mandatory
counsel is not a condition required by law for placement of a person
in a mental hospital, and the right to mandatory counsel is not
guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.
The applicant submits that the Slovak authorities had no right
whatsoever to order his examination on an out-patient basis or any
other examination and to take him by force from home, to "kidnap him
in handcuffs and to deliberately place him into a mental hospital with
the only objective - to cover up more effectively the genocides against
foreign nationals and minorities". He claims that during his stay in
hospital no one advised him of his right to have a lawyer, not even
when he was forcibly taken away from his home in handcuffs and brought
to the hospital.
The applicant also contests the Government's submission that his
complaint against the ruling of the Court of 11 July 1995 was filed on
18 July 1995 and that he did not protest against his placement in the
hospital at the domestic level. He did protest, but unsuccessfully.
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 5 paras.
1 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-4) of the Convention without the further
observations of both parties.
6. Finally, the applicant considers that he has been discriminated
against on the ground of his nationality. He invokes, in substance,
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention prohibits treating differently, without any objective and
reasonable justification, persons in "relevantly" similar situations
(cf. Eur. Court HR, Fredin v. Sweden judgment of 18 February 1991,
Series A no. 192, p. 19, para. 60).
However, the applicant does not show that another person in a
"relevantly" similar situation was treated differently from the
applicant.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the applicant's complaints that he could not
defend himself in person in the criminal proceedings in which he
was involved, that his detention in mental hospital was not
decided in a correct procedure and that he was not entitled to
take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention in the
mental hospital could be decided speedily by a court,
unanimously,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE
Secretary President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy