TNAG-2654-FCO40-3847-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1992 — Page 20

3.

- 7 -

19319/92

Finally the applicant complains that he has no effective domestic remedies at his disposal to test his Convention complaints. He invokes both Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention and Article 13.

Article 5 para. 4 reads as follows:

"4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."

This provision is the lex specialis in relation to the applicant's complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. As regards the applicant's complaint that his detention pending extradition is unlawful and not in accordance with Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant has been afforded many opportunities to exert a remedy compatible with Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention, namely the numerous habeas corpus applications which he has made and still makes, as well as the possibility to apply for judicial review. The applicant also had every opportunity to contest the extradition, as such, before the Bow Street Magistrates Court in 1987.

In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the present case does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.

The provisions of Article 13 of the Convention, also invoked by the applicant, are as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The only element of the applicant's case which might not fall within the ambit of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention above concerns his complaint under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 5. However, for the same reasons outlined above in rejecting the applicant's Article 14 complaint

Article 14 complaint as being manifestly ill-founded, the Commission finds that the applicant has no arguable claim under that provision which might necessitate a remedy pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention (cf. notion of "arguable" claim in Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A No. 131, pp. 23-24, paras. 52-58).

It follows that the applicant's complaints about a lack of remedies are, like the rest of the application, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber

(M, de SALVIA)

President of the First Chamber

1.4

(J.A. FROWEIN)