| X. c. ITALIE

APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 6481/74 X . v/ITALY X . c/ITALI E DECISION of 12 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 12 décembre 1974 sur la recevabilité de la requéte Articie 25 of the Convention : The Convention does not provide for eny "actio populans" . Every applicant must claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention . Article 25 de la Convention : La Convention ne prAvoit pas d'rr actio popularis », mais exige que le requérant se prétende victime d'une violation de la Convention . IEnglish : see below)
Extrait de la décision
Le requérant, demeurant à Reggio Calabria, parait vouloir agir au nom des habitants de cette ville . Il se plaint de façon générale du « terrorisme rouge » qui sévirait en Italie et contre lequel se serait érigé le « peuple de Reggio t entre 1970 et 1973 . Toutefois, la Commission souligne que la Convention ne prévoit pas d'rr actio popularis n, mais elle exige pour l'exercice du droit de recours individuel que le requérant se prétende victime d'une violation de la Convention (article 25) . En l'espéce, le requérant n'a pas démontré qu'il est lui-méme victime, directe ou indirecte, de la situation qu'il dénonce, ni qu'il a été dOment mandaté par un groupe de personnes qui se prétendent victimes de cette situation, de sorte que cette partie de la requtte doit r'tre déclarée irrecevable pour incompatibilité avec les dispositions de la Convention . ( TRANSL ATION ) Extract from the decisio n
The applicant, living in Reggio di Calabria, appears to be willing to act on behalf of the inhabitants of that town . He generally complains of the "Red terrorism" which could be raging in Italy and against which the "People of Reggio" would have stood between 1970 and 1973 . However, the Commission emphasises that the Convention does not provide for any "actio popularis" . On the contrary, it imposes as a condition for the exercise of the right of individual petition, that every applicant should claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention (Article 25) . In the present case, the applicant has not shown, either that he is himself a victim, whether direct or indirect, of the situation he has outlined, or that he has been properly appointed by a group of persons claiming to be victim of that situation . This part of the application must therefore be declared inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention .
_79_
APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 6501/74 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY X . c/RÉPUBLIOUE FÉDERALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 19 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 19 décembre 1974 sur la recevabilité de la requét e
Article 6, paragraph 3 b), of the Convention : Rights of the Defence in appeal proceed . ings concerning the sentence only, where the applicant has already been deported while these proceedings were still pending 6, paragraphe 3 b) de la Convention : Droits de la défense dans une procédure .Article de cassation ne portent que sur la peine forsque l'intéressé est expulsé au courant de la procédure. ffrançais : voir ci-dessous)
Summary of the, facts
Turkish citizen convicted in Germany of drug trafficking . Appeal refused. The applicant then lodged a further appeal ("Revision'l concerning the sentence only . frrimediatefy after having fited his further appeal, he was deported to Turkey by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant Ifurtherl complains that he was deported to Turkey on . . . May 1973 before his sentence had become final . In this respect, he alleges a violation of Article 6(3) b) . Article 6 (3) bl assures to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence . According to the Commission's jurisprudence, in order to determine the question whether the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence has been respected, account must be taken of the general situation of the defence, in particular whether such defence is carried out by the accused himself or through a lawyer (see application No . 2370/64, X . v . Austria, Collection of Decisions 22, p . 96) .
It is true that the applicant was expelled on . . . May 1973 by decision of the Public Order Office in Stuttgart, while his turther appeal (Revision) against the decision of the Regional Court was pending before the Court of Appeal in Stuttgart . However, the applicant was represented by the same lawyer (Dr P .) in the course of all criminal proceedings . In this context, it is also to be observed that the further appeal (Revision) concerned only the length of the sentence imposed and that the conviction had already becomefinal . Conse : quently, the Commission finds that the applicant's deportation does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights of the defence as set out in Article 6 (3) b) . This part of the application is therefore inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
Résumé des faits Ressortissant turc condamné en République Fédérale d'Allemagne pour trafic de drogue. Appel rejeté . Le requérant introduit afors un pourvoi en cassation ("Revision'1 portant uniquement sur la peine . Aussitôt aprés l'introduction de son pourvoi, il est expufsé en Turquie par les autorités de la République Fédérale d'Allemagne .
- 80 -
Résumé du considérant pertinen t Pour apprécier, dans un cas donné, la question de savoir si le droit garanti 9/'artic% 6, paragraphe 3 b) a été respecté, il faut tenir compte de l'ensemble de la situation laite à la défense (Rappel de jurisprudencel . Bien qu'ayant été expulsé, le requérant a été représenté dans la procédure de cassation par l'avocat qui l'avait auparavant assisté . La Commission note en outre que le pourvoi ne portait que sur la durée de la peine, et non sur la culpabilité . Il n'y a donc pas apparence de violation de l'artic% 6, paragraphe 3 b) et le grief es t manifestement mal fondé .
-81 -