| X. c. NORVEGE

APPLICATION/REOUETE N° 5969/72 X . v/NORWAY X . c/NORVÉG E DECISION of 19 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 19 décembre 1974 sur la recevabilité de la requéte
Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention : Any examination of a complaint under this provision presupposes an analysis of the point whether there has been a breach of the rights set forth in para . 1-4 of the same Article . Artfcfe 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention : L'examen d'un grief tiré de cette disposition nécessite l'examen préalabfe du point de savoir s'il y a eu violation des droits énoncés aux paragraphes 1 à 4 du même article.
(français : voir p. 53 )
Summary of the facts
Applicant arrested in June 1972 and remanded in custody on suspicion of having handled stolen goods . Then charged with theft and handling stolen goods alternatively . Brought before the Vest Telemark District Court in August 1972, he was acquitted for lacking guilty intent although the facts had been established . The applicant then lodged with the same court a claim for compensetion for injuries due to his detention . His claim was based on Article 469 par. 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court rejected the claim in October 1972 on the ground that the applicant had behaved carelessly and had himsed to blame for his arrest and detention . Applicant's appeals were rejected by the court of Appeal (December 19721 and the Supreme Court (February 19741 respective N THE LA W The applicant complains that he has not received damages for his allegedly wrongful detention pending trial . It is true that Art . 5 ( 5) of the Convention provides that "everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation" . However this presupposes a finding of a viotation of one of the preceding provisions . For this reason and even assuming that the applicant could be said to have challenged the lawfulness of his detention within the compass of his compensation claim the Commission has first examined the application under Art . 5 ( 1) Icl . This provision secures that no-one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the case when he is lawfully detained for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence . The Commission, in adopting the reasoning in the decision given by the Vest Telemark District Court and taking note of the outcome of the applicant's case before the Agder Court of Appeal finds that the applicant's detention was lawful because the suspicion against him was reasonable . The Commission has also examined ex officio the case in the light of Art . 5 ( 3) and (4) . An . 5(3 ) provides that everyone arrested or detained in accordance with para . 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge . . . and shall be entitled to trial within a
- 52 -
reasonable time or be released pending trial . The applicant was brought before the district court on the day after his arrest and was commited for trial . His trial took place some six weeks later . It is therefore clear that the applicant was brought promptly before the competent judge within the meaning of this Article and it is equally clear that his trial was held within a reasonable tinie . Art . 5 141 provides that everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawiulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a courr and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful . In the present case the appllcant did not apply for his release pending trial nor has he complained that he has been hindered in taking such proceedings . At the time the applicant brought his compensation claint there was of course no question of applying for release according to Art 5 141 . An examination by the Commission of the application as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance ot a violation of Ihe rlghls and freedoms set out in Art . 5 111 - 141 of the Conventlo .laim niarlc unclei ArI . 5 151 is manifestly ill-toundr.d wilhin ih e nlifowsIh,cr
meanpng of Art . 27 121 of the Convention . For these reasons . Ihe Comntissio n
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E Résumé des tait s Soupconné rle recel, le requdrant a élA arrété en juin 1972 et placé en détention prèventive. Accusé de vol ou recel, il a été Iraduit en ao0t 1972 devant le tnbunal du district rle Vest Telemark, qui l'a acqui«é pour dé/aut d'intention délictueuse, bien que les laits rmtériels aient éré établis . Lc requLvrmt s''udressu uu nri•nm inbunul cn vuc rl'clre indcannrs'é /ruur la rlétcrrtiuu subie . ll londait sa demande sur l'article 469, paragraphe 3 111, du code de procédure pénale . Celleci /ur rejetée en octobre 1972, au motif que le requérant s'était conduit avec légéreté et devait s'en prendre A/uirnéme s'il avait été arrété et détenu .
Des recours du requéraru lurent rejetés successivement par la cour d'appel (décembre 1972 ) et par la Cour Suprérne (février 1974) . Résumé des considérations « En droit u Une violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 5, de la Convention présuppose la constatation d'tirre violation d'un des droits énoncés aux paragraphes 1 à 4 du même article . Sans approfondir la question de savoir si le requérant peut étre considéré comme ayant, dans le cadre de son action en indemnisation, contesté la légalité de sa détention, la Commission croit pouvoir adopter les motifs des juridictions nationales et estime que la déterrtion du requérant était conforme A l'article 5, paragraphe 1(c), parce qu'il existait des raisons plausibles de le soupGonner . Après un examen d'office, la Commission estime qu'il n'y a pas apparence de violatio n de l'article 5, paragraphe 3, le requérant ayant été traduit devant un juge le lendemain de son arrestation et son procés ayant eu lieu six semaines plus tard . l1 n'y a pas non plus apparence de violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, le requérant n'ayant pas demandé sa mise en liberté et ne s'étant pas plaint qu'il aurait été empéchA de le /aire . N'ayant trouvé aucune trace de violation de /'article 5, paragraphes 1 à 4, la Commission rejette comme manifestement mal fondé le grief tiré de l'article 5, paragraphe 5.
- 53 -