G.G. v. SWITZERLAND

THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant, a computer scientist, is a Swiss national born in

1945 and residing in Lausanne. Before the Commission he is represented

by Mr. Jean Lob, a lawyer practising in Lausanne.

On 11 August 1993 the applicant was arrested by order of the

Prosecutor General (Procureur général de la Confédération suisse). He

was suspected of having collaborated with Soviet intelligence agents

between 1979 and 1992 and having revealed technological information to

which he had access by virtue of his professional activities.

On the day of the arrest the applicant was questioned for several

hours at a police station. In the evening he was transferred to a

prison.

On 12 August 1993, the morning following the arrest, the

applicant requested a lawyer and demanded to be released. It was

agreed between the applicant and the investigating police officer that

the applicant's wife would choose and contact a lawyer and that the

applicant would petition the Prosecutor General in writing for his

release.

In the afternoon a lawyer chosen by the applicant's wife brought,

for the applicant to sign, a power of attorney and a petition for

release addressed to the Prosecutor General. The applicant signed

these documents.

On 13 August 1993, the request for release and a request for

permission for the lawyer to visit his client were refused by the

Prosecutor General. The decision stated inter alia that the

investigation had just begun, that it was necessary to question the

applicant further and that, in view of the fact that the circle of

persons involved in the alleged collaboration was still unknown, there

was a danger of collusion.

Also, in a telephone conversation with the applicant's lawyer,

the prosecutor in charge of the case allegedly declined to assure him

that his correspondence with his client would not be examined by the

authorities.

Thereupon the lawyer telephoned his client in prison and informed

him that he had been refused authorisation to visit him during the

coming weekend.

On 16 August 1993 the applicant's lawyer submitted a complaint

to the Ministry of Justice (Département Fédéral de Justice et Police)

challenging the decision of the Prosecutor General.

On 19 August 1993 the Ministry of Justice informed the lawyer

that in view of a recent change in the legislation, they had requested

an opinion from the Federal Court (Tribunal fédéral) about their

competence to examine the complaint. On 23 August 1993, after the

Federal Court had found that the issue was within its competence, the

applicant's lawyer submitted his observations and a formal complaint

to the Court.

In the meantime the applicant was interrogated for several hours

each working day.

On Monday, 16 August 1993 two letters from the lawyer dated

13 and 16 August 1993 and a copy of the decision of the Prosecutor

General of 13 August 1993 were delivered to the applicant.

On the morning of 26 August 1993 the applicant received a letter

from his lawyer dated 23 August 1993.

In the evening of the same say he was released by order of the

Prosecutor General.

On 15 September 1993 the Federal Court struck out of its list the

applicant's complaint concerning the refusal of the Prosecutor General

to release him and to authorise his lawyer's visits as it had become

without object.

On 14 February 1995 the Prosecutor General suspended the

preliminary investigation against the applicant. The decision stated

inter alia that although it had been established that the applicant had

had numerous contacts with Soviet secret agents, there had not been

sufficient proof that the applicant had unlawfully revealed secret

information during these meetings.

Upon the applicant's claim for damages, the Federal Court

(Chambre d'accusation du Tribunal fédéral) on 6 June 1995 awarded the

applicant an indemnity of 200 SF for each day of his detention. The

Court stated that a suspension of criminal proceedings at the

preliminary police inquiry stage could give rise to a claim for damages

whenever the acts of the investigation authorities had involved a

serious prejudice for the accused. Since the detention on remand was

in itself such a serious prejudice, the applicant was entitled to an

equitable indemnity.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3(c) of the

Convention that he was deprived of his right to have contact with his

lawyer during the sixteen days of detention. The refusal of the

authorities to guarantee the privacy of the correspondence between the

applicant and his lawyer during the detention was also contrary to

Article 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention.

The applicant also complains under Article 13 in conjunction with

Article 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention that the decision of the Federal

Court to strike the applicant's appeal out of its list amounted to a

denial of an effective remedy.