AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14379/88
by W.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 9 October 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 September
1988 by W. against Switzerland and registered on 10 November 1988
under file No. 14379/88;
Having regard to
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
13 October 1989 and the observations in reply submitted by
the applicant on 13 December 1989;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows:
The applicant, a Swiss national born in 1945, is a businessman
residing at G. in Switzerland. When filing the application he
was remanded in custody at Burgdorf prison in Switzerland. Before the
Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. P. Saluz, a lawyer
practising in Bern.
I.
As from October 1982 onwards the Criminal Police of the Canton
of Bern received complaints about the business activities of the
applicant and other persons; various criminal reports (Anzeigen) were
filed. During this time a number of companies in which the applicant
and other persons were involved went bankrupt.
In October 1984 a confidential report counting over 100 pages
and containing a request for criminal investigations (Ermittlungsgesuch)
was issued to various Interpol agencies in the Federal Republic of
Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Monaco and
various countries in the Caribbean.
On 8 February 1985 preliminary investigations were instituted
against the applicant and other persons.
On 27 March 1985 the applicant was arrested and remanded in
custody on suspicion of having committed various economic offences
and on the grounds of a danger of absconding, of collusion and of
repetition. The charges related to approximately 60 companies
controlled by the applicant.
Charges were also brought against altogether 12 other persons
of whom six were eventually arrested and remanded in custody.
As from mid-1985, two special investigating judges (Unter-
suchungsrichter) were appointed exclusively to conduct the
investigations concerning events dating back to 1977. The
investigating judges were assisted by two specialists of the Bern
Cantonal Police and two to three secretaries. The investigations
were placed under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor and the
Indictment Chamber (Anklagekammer) at the Court of Appeal
(Obergericht) of the Canton of Bern.
Between March 1985 and June 1986 the residencies of the
applicant and other persons and firms were searched in altogether 18
instances. Large amounts of documents were seized. According to the
subsequent report of the special investigating judges of 3 October
1988, the documents, which were found inter alia in a cellar and in a
bath, were in a complete mess (heilloses Durcheinander). During this
period the telephone and telex communications of the suspects were
monitored.
On 3 April 1985 the investigating authorities seized various
bank accounts in altogether 17 banks. Letters rogatory were issued in
respect of further banks. Eventually, the authorities established a
list of approximately 200 bank accounts concerning the criminal
proceedings instituted against the applicant and other persons. In
1985, monies and valuables possessed by the applicant and other
persons were confiscated on the basis of orders of, or following
searches on, 27 and 28 March, 3 April, 4 May, 2, 3 and 27 June,
5 September, 3 October and 25 November.
The investigating authorities entered the information
collected during the preliminary investigations by means of a computer
in a day-by-day journal (tagebuchartiger Abriss), eventually counting
891 pages.
The main case-file (Hauptdossier) eventually consisted of 711
files; a further file (Nebendossier) was also established. The row of
documents extended over 120 metres. Towards the end of 1986 a new
systematic order of the file was introduced. At one stage, when
establishing a systematic order, over 10,000 photocopies were prepared
per month. According to the Report of the special investigating
judges of 3 October 1988, the investigating authorities viewed every
single page of the case-file.
At the early stages of the proceedings difficulties arose with
regard to the various accused persons' right to consult the
case-file. At one stage, the investigating authorities considered
that consultation of the case-file would have to be refused for some
years. Altogether 14 complaints and appeals were filed against
various decisions of the investigating authorities. After April 1986
the accused were permitted to consult approximately 90% of the
case-file, after 22 October 1986 virtually the entire case-file.
On approximately 350 occasions the investigating authorities
questioned the applicant, the other accused and various other
persons. However, as from 11 April 1986 onwards the applicant no
longer replied to questions put to him by the investigating
authorities. The latter nevertheless interrogated the applicant on
altogether 36 occasions, namely in 1986: on 11 and 15 April;
7 May; 4 June; 17 July; 19, 26, 27 and 29 August; 1, 5, 10 and
22 September; and 24 November; in 1987: on 11, 16, 25 and 26
February; 4 and 6 March; 11 and 25 June; 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 July; in 1988: on 12 July.
The minutes of the applicant's interrogations, amounting to
approximately 700 pages, consisted of the statements of the
investigating authorities, as well as the statement that the applicant
refused to reply thereto.
Between 29 March 1985 and 18 May 1988 the various persons
remanded in custody filed altogether 25 requests for release from
detention. The applicant filed altogether eight requests.
The applicant filed his first request to be released from
detention on remand on 24 May 1985. The request was dismissed on
1 July 1985 by the Indictment Chamber.
On 8 July 1985 the applicant filed certain complaints about
his official representation by a lawyer (amtliche Verteidigung).
These complaints were dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 22 July
1985.
On 2 August 1985 the applicant complained that one of his
lawyers was not granted a permanent right to visit him, the applicant
(Dauerbesuchsbewilligung). The Indictment Chamber dismissed this
complaint on 28 August 1985.
On 26 August 1985 the applicant filed a second request to be
released from detention on remand. This request was dismissed by the
Indictment Chamber on 13 September 1985. Against this decision the
applicant filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde)
which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) dismissed on 7 November 1985.
The Federal Court considered that the requirements to impose
detention on remand under Section 111 of the Bern Code of Criminal
Procedure (Gesetz über das Strafverfahren) were met in that the
applicant was under a compelling suspicion of having committed the
offence and in that there was a danger of collusion and of absconding,
in particular as since 1978 the applicant had been living in Monte
Carlo, Germany, the United States of America and Anguilla. Section 111
lays down the requirements for detention on remand, in particular the
compelling suspicion of having committed an offence, the danger of
absconding, of collusion or of repetition.
The Federal Court also regarded as proportionate the length of
the applicant's detention on remand so far. The decision continued:
[German]
"Indessen werden die Behörden des Kantons Bern alles daran setzen
müssen, das Verfahren beschleunigt zu fördern und insbesondere
diejenigen Personen zu vernehmen (und allenfalls mit dem
Beschwerdeführer zu konfrontieren), mit denen Kollusionsgefahr
bestehen könnte. Die Kompliziertheit des Sachverhalts allein
vermöchte eine jahrelange Untersuchungshaft kaum zu rechtfertigen."
[English translation]
"Nevertheless, the authorities of Canton Bern will have to do
everything to accelerate the proceedings and in particular to
question (or possibly to confront with the applicant) those
persons in respect of whom there exists a danger of collusion.
The mere fact that the case is complex would hardly justify
detention on remand for years."
Meanwhile, on 6 September 1985 the applicant filed a request
for the preparation of an expert opinion on certain company accounts.
This was his only request to obtain evidence during the preliminary
investigations. An expert opinion was eventually ordered in July
1986.
The applicant's third request to be released from detention on
remand of 17 March 1986 was again dismissed by the Indictment
Chamber. His public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on
25 August 1986.
The Federal Court confirmed in particular that there continued
to exist a danger of absconding in particular as the applicant had
expressed the wish to start a new life in the United States of America.
On the other hand, the Court found that a danger of collusion could in
future no longer be assumed as the last co-accused, a certain V.K.,
had meanwhile been arrested, and the interrogations of the most
important witnesses had been completed.
The Court considered that the applicant was mainly responsible
for the length of his detention, since the complexity of the case was
due to his failure properly to keep the accounts of the various
companies.
The Court noted that the two investigating judges charged with
the investigations had so far worked very intensively, but that no
assessment of the materials had yet commenced with a view to a
subsequent indictment. Nor was it clear whether expert opinions
should be ordered in respect of the company accounts and the
psychiatric examination of the applicant. Finally, the Court
considered that the length of the applicant's detention on remand did
not yet come too close to the length of the applicant's prospective
prison sentence, even if in this respect the Indictment Chamber had
probably gone too far when it assumed that an eventual sentence might
be in excess of five years.
In July and October 1986 the investigating authorities ordered
the preparation of two expert opinions concerning the company accounts,
and a psychiatric examination of the applicant, respectively. The
accountancy opinion was submitted on 10 April 1987, the psychiatric
opinion on 22 December 1986. The latter confirmed the applicant's
full criminal responsibility (Zurechnungsfähigkeit). On 19 January
1987 the investigating authorities unsuccessfully requested the Bern
Guardianship Office (Vormundschaftsbehörde) to place the applicant
under guardianship.
On 12 December 1986 the applicant filed a fourth request to be
released from detention on remand, which the Indictment Chamber
dismissed on 20 January 1987. The applicant's subsequent public law
appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 24 March 1987.
The Court found that, insofar as the applicant complained of
the time required to prepare the expert accountancy opinion, namely
eight months, he himself had disregarded elementary rules of
accountancy, for instance by filling financial "holes" in one company
with the means of other companies.
The Court further noted the volume of the case-files,
consisting of a row of one hundred metres, and observed that the
authorities, in view of the nature of the case had appointed two
investigating judges which now envisaged terminating the
investigations by autumn 1987. The Court also noted the applicant's
refusal to answer questions. The decision continued:
[German]
"Immerhin sei betont, dass eine Praxis, wonach ein schwerer
Wirtschaftsdelikte, jedoch keiner Gewalttaten verdächtiger
Angeschuldigter allein wegen genereller Fluchtgefahr
notwendigerweise bis zur rechtskräftigen Beurteilung seiner
Sache in Haft zu bleiben habe, mit dem Grundrecht der
persönlichen Freiheit nicht vereinbar wäre... Zu berücksichtigen
ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch, dass der Anreiz zur Flucht im
allgemeinen abnimmt, je grösser der bereits erstandene Haftanteil
wird. Untersuchungsrichter, Staatsanwaltschaft und Anklagekammer
werden daher nach Vornahme der wenigen Untersuchungshandlungen,
bezüglich welcher noch eine gewisse Kollusionsgefahr angenommen
werden kann, längstens jedoch nach einer Haftdauer von 21/2 Jahren,
die Haftentlassung des Beschwerdeführers unter Anordnung der
geeigneten Ersatzmassnahmen im Sinne von Art. 111a des bernischen
Gesetzes über das Strafverfahren in Erwägung ziehen müssen.
Anders verhielte es sich nur dann, wenn sich bis dahin konkrete
Anhaltspunkte für eine Fluchtabsicht ergeben sollten. Der
Haftgrund der Wiederholungsgefahr ... dürfte dagegen bei dem
nicht vorbestraften Beschwerdeführer ausser Betracht fallen."
[English translation]
"It has nevertheless to be emphasised that it would no longer be
compatible with the basic right of personal freedom if an accused
suspected of serious economic offences but not of violent acts
was detained on remand until the final determination of his case
merely on the ground of a general danger of absconding... It has
also to be taken into account in this respect that the incentive
to abscond generally decreases as the proportion of time spent in
detention increases. The investigating judges, the Public
Prosecutor's Office as well as the Indictment Chamber will all
have to consider the applicant's release from detention together
with any suitable concomitant supplementary measures within the
meaning of Article 111a of the Bern Code of Criminal Procedure,
once they have undertaken the few investigating acts in respect
of which a certain danger of collusion can still be accepted, but
at the latest after a period of detention of two and a half
years. Matters would only be different if until then there
should be concrete indications of a danger of absconding. The
danger of repetition on the other hand ... would not play a part
since the applicant has not previously been convicted."
Meanwhile, during these proceedings the applicant was in
exceptional cases not permitted to be present during certain acts of
investigation. Upon the applicant's complaint, the Indictment Chamber
decided on 27 January 1987 that the applicant was to be granted the
right in principle to be present during the investigations.
On 16 April 1987 the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich
which was conducting the investigations concerning the applicant in
the Federal Republic of Germany established its report which was
subsequently sent to the investigating judges in Bern.
In 1987 moneys and valuables concerning the applicant and
other persons were confiscated on the basis of orders of, or following
searches on, 16 and 19 January, 9 February, 5 March, 14 May, 2 July,
19 and 21 August (concerning the applicant's personal objects such as
a watch and ring and the surplus resulting from the sale of real
property) and 1 December (concerning a life insurance policy).
On 3 August 1987 the applicant filed a fifth request to be
released from detention on remand which was dismissed by the
Indictment Chamber on 4 September 1987. His public law appeal was
dismissed on 29 October 1987 by the Federal Court.
The Federal Court considered in particular that the delay was
justified by the additional work resulting from the investigations.
Moreover, an excess of the maximum permissible duration of detention
on remand would not be excluded as long as the investigating
authorities had handled the investigations speedily. While its
decision of 24 March 1987 had envisaged a maximum length of detention
of two and a half years, the investigating authorities had meanwhile
taken over proceedings instituted against the applicant in the Federal
Republic of Germany. Nevertheless, the length of detention on remand
should not come too close to the anticipated maximum duration of the
prison sentence. In this respect the Federal Court did not regard it as
unreasonable that the investigating authorities anticipated a prison
sentence of more than five years, particularly since the German
authorities also considered that the applicant had committed the
offence of fraud under German law. As a result, the detention on
remand did not yet exceed the critical limit.
The applicant's sixth request of 2 December 1987 to be
released from detention on remand was rejected by the Indictment
Chamber on 9 December 1987.
On 18 December 1987 the applicant requested unsupervised
visits by his wife. This request was dismissed by the Indictment
Chamber on 16 February 1988, and the Federal Court on 19 May 1988.
On 1 February 1988 the applicant filed a seventh request to be
released from detention on remand, which was dismissed by the
Indictment Chamber on 18 February 1988. The latter found in
particular that the danger of absconding could not be avoided merely
by imposing substitute securities. Rather, substantial financial
guarantees would have to be submitted which the applicant had
nevertheless refused to provide. The applicant's subsequent public law
appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 25 April 1988.
The Federal Court found that the applicant had failed to
demonstrate that in his case there no longer existed a danger of
absconding. It further regarded the duration of detention pending
trial as still falling within the permissible limit, in particular
since the anticipated prison sentence would probably exceed five years
by far. While the investigating authorities had frequently postponed
the date at which the investigations would be closed, the Court noted
in particular the difficulties of preparing a day-by-day journal on
the basis of the information gathered and the fact that investigations
were also being conducted against other accused persons, each charged
with different offences. Moreover, the applicant continued to refuse
to co-operate with the authorities, and one of the investigating
judges had fallen ill. The Court nevertheless urged the investigating
authorities to conclude the investigations within the next months.
Meanwhile, on 17 February 1988 the applicant filed a complaint
that various personal gold objects had not been handed out to him. He
also complained that in certain bankruptcy proceedings he had not been
able to consult the case-file, and that in civil proceedings in which
he was involved he had not been granted a further officially appointed
lawyer. These complaints were dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on
17 February 1988.
On 7 March 1988 the Bern Cantonal Police Office charged with
the investigation of one business enterprise, the ITF/Sülan,
established their final report and transmitted it to the investigating
judges.
On 16 March 1988 the applicant challenged an investigating
judge on account of certain remarks which the latter had made. The
challenge was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber on 28 March 1988,
and by the Federal Court on 11 July 1988.
On 18 May 1988 the applicant filed his eighth request to be
released from detention on remand. The request was dismissed by the
Indictment Chamber on 27 June 1988.
The applicant's further public law appeal was partly upheld by
the Federal Court on 19 August 1988. With reference to the Convention
organs' case-law, the Court found in particular that the applicant had
not been granted the possibility in these proceedings to comment on
statements of the Public Prosecutor (Generalprokurator) and the
investigating judges.
As a result, the applicant was granted the possibility to
comment on the statements concerned. Subsequently, on 6 September
1988 the Indictment Chamber again dismissed the applicant's eighth
request to be released from detention on remand. The applicant filed
a further public law appeal which the Federal Court again partly
upheld on 15 November 1988.
The Court found that a mere theoretical danger of collusion
did not suffice to justify further custody. In the applicant's case
however there were concrete indications that such a danger existed.
The Court also noted that on 2 September 1988 the applicant had been
indicted (see below II.) and that therefore it could not be said that
the authorities had disregarded the Court's instructions of 25 April
1988.
On the other hand, with regard to the question whether the
applicant's detention on remand was approaching the absolute limit,
the Court stated that for the calculation of the prospective prison
sentence not all criminal offences, but only those in respect of which
it was virtually certain that the applicant would eventually be
convicted, had to be considered. The cantonal authorities had
assumed a possible sentence of 15 years which in the Court's view was
clearly exaggerated (deutlich übersetzt). In view thereof the
cantonal authorities had failed to examine the possibility of the
applicant's early provisional release from detention. The Court thus
quashed the decision of the Indictment Chamber of 6 September 1988
with the instruction to consider the possibility of provisional
release.
On 10 January 1989 the Indictment Chamber dismissed for a
third time the applicant's eighth request to be released from
detention on remand.
The applicant's subsequent public law appeal was dismissed by
the Federal Court on 23 February 1989. The Court agreed in particular
with the Indictment Chamber's view that there were no convincing
reasons (triftige Gründe) warranting provisional release. Reference
was made in particular to the psychiatric opinion of 22 December 1986
according to which the applicant qualified as a swindler (Hochstapler)
and an unrestrained hedonist. The Court also found it irrelevant that
the applicant's conduct during detention had been excellent.
During these proceedings the applicant offered a security
amounting to 30,000 SFr. The security was considered insufficient by
the authorities in view of the presumed damages at a value of over
50 million SFr.
II.
Meanwhile, on 29 April 1988 the investigating judges announced
in the document "Notification and decision" their intention to commit
the applicant for trial before the Criminal Chamber for Economic
Offences (Wirtschaftsstrafgericht) at the Bern Court of Appeal. The
notification referred inter alia to the charges of professional fraud,
fraudulent bankruptcy, forging and suppressing documents and tax fraud.
With regard to the charges of professional fraud, the
notification referred to damages of at least 50 million SFr, caused
between 1977/1978 and 1985. It stated that the applicant had, in
order to enrich himself, as sole or mainly responsible person with the
help of front-men abused the control of many companies located in
Switzerland, Panama, the Caribbean, the United Kingdom and the Federal
Republic of Germany. He had created a network of relations between
the companies which he then exploited by all means. When the applicant
encountered financial difficulties, he tried to solve them by
exploiting new companies, thus leading more and more companies into
bankruptcy. He deceived his creditors by means of false financial
securities and statements about the state of the companies.
On 17 May 1988 the applicant filed comments on these charges.
On 26 May 1988 the criminal proceedings against the applicant
and two other co-accused were separated in view of the urgency of
their case.
On 28 June 1988 the applicant complained that he was not
permitted to consult the case-file, and that his lawyer was not
allowed to take certain files to his office or use the official
photocopier free of charge. These complaints were dismissed by the
Indictment Chamber on 27 July 1988.
On 2 September 1988 the applicant was committed for trial
(Überweisungsbeschluss) before the Criminal Chamber for Economic
Offences at the Bern Court of Appeal (Wirtschaftsstrafgericht).
On 30 August 1988 various orders were issued concerning the
confiscation of coins and stamps amounting to approximately 500 SFr
and two bonds (Schuldbriefe).
On 3 October 1988 the special investigating judges filed a
report numbering 50 pages on the manner in which the preliminary
investigations against the applicant had been conducted.
The trial commenced on 17 February 1989 and lasted until
30 March 1989.
On 30 March 1989 the applicant was convicted by the Criminal
Chamber for Economic Offences at the Bern Court of Appeal inter alia
of various instances of professional fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy,
partly committed until December 1985 while the applicant was remanded
in custody, and forging and suppressing documents. The applicant was
sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 SFr. The
detention on remand of 1,465 days was counted towards the sentence.
The applicant was ordered to pay court costs amounting to 179,900 SFr.
One co-accused was sentenced to three years' imprisonment
and a fine of 2,000 SFr, another co-accused to two and a half years'
imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 SFr. These co-accused were also
ordered to pay court costs amounting to 25,700 SFr each.
The written reasons of the judgment were served on the
applicant on 15 January 1990.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 3 of the
Convention of the length of his detention on remand lasting since
27 March 1985. In his opinion, this length has been warranted neither
by the complexity of the case nor by his refusal to co-operate with
the prosecution; it is not proportional to the envisaged prison
sentence.
The applicant submits that from the beginning it was clear
that an experienced investigating judge was called for. Yet the two
investigating judges appointed had no specific experience and the
result of their investigations was insufficient for an indictment.
In the applicant's opinion too much work was invested in the
investigations. In fact, it became impossible for him effectively to
have access to the case-materials.
The applicant contends that the committal for trial statement
was too summary. It could also not be argued that the lengthy period
of investigations was compensated by speedy trial proceedings, since
the written reasons of the judgment were only prepared many months
later.
The applicant finally draws attention to procedural issues
during the proceedings, for instance the restrictions when consulting
the case-file.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 20 September 1988 and
registered on 10 November 1988.
On 12 July 1989 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit
written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
The Government's observations were received by letter dated
13 October 1989 and the applicant's observations were dated
13 December 1989.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of the length of his detention on
remand. He submits that neither the complexity of the case nor his
refusal to co-operate with the authorities justified this length. The
applicant relies on Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention
which states:
"3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of this Article ... shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for
trial."
The Government submit that when determining whether or not the
length of the applicant's detention on remand was reasonable, all
circumstances of the case must be considered, namely the volume and
complexity of the matter, the conduct of the authorities and the
applicant, and the relationship between the length of the detention
and the seriousness of the offences at issue.
The Government consider that in the present case there were
concrete indications to assume a danger of absconding and of
collusion. There was also a risk that the applicant would commit
further offences.
The Government further recall that the authorities of the
Canton of Bern were here confronted with their most complex case
ever concerning economic offences. Thus, 12 persons were charged,
six were arrested and remanded in custody, and the damages exceeded
50 million SFr. The applicant had intentionally failed properly to
organise the accounts of his many companies. The investigations which
had also to be conducted on an intercantonal and international level,
covered a period of eight years. Only the most important transactions
were eventually considered at the trial.
The Government observe that two special investigating judges
as well as other persons exclusively dealt with the case. These
investigating judges were lawyers (Anwälte) with many years of
experience gained in the registry of the Bern Court of Appeal. The
Federal Court regularly declared unfounded the applicant's complaints
that the judges were incompetent or had delayed the proceedings. The
Federal Court also constantly exhorted the cantonal authorities
speedily to pursue their investigations.
On the other hand, the Government note that the applicant
refused to give evidence. The conclusions of the Federal Court are
emphasised according to which the main responsibility for the length
of the detention fell to the applicant. Thus, the defence did not
contribute to the ascertainment of the facts. In view of the eventual
prison sentence of 11 years, the Government consider that detention on
remand lasting four years cannot be regarded as being disproportionate.
The Commission, having regard to the parties' submissions,
considers that the application raises complex issues of fact and law
which can only be resolved by an examination of the merits. The
application cannot, therefore, be declared manifestly ill-founded
under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other
grounds for inadmissibility have been established.
For these reasons, the Commission,
by a majority, DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,
without prejudging the merits of the case.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy