THE FACTS Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, born in 1913, and at present detained in the Blundeston prison at Lowestoft. On .. June, 1966, the applicant was convicted of conspiracy in a series of company frauds at the Birmingham Assizes and sentenced to twelve years' preventive detention. According to the applicant, this decision was subsequently upheld by the full Court of Appeal in January, 1967. Under Section 37 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, preventive detention was abolished. However, in order to protect the public from certain persistent offenders, the Act gave the courts powers to impose an extended term of imprisonment if certain conditions were satisfied. However, this extended term can never exceed ten years, whereas, according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which was applied to the applicant, a sentence of preventive detention could be imposed in lieu of any other sentence for a maximum term of fourteen years. Under Schedule 5 to the 1967 Act (which entered into force on 1st October, 1967) a person sentenced to preventive detention, who was detained in pursuance of his sentence on 1st April, 1968, shall be treated for purposes of detention, release, recall and otherwise as having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of the same length as the term of his original sentence. The applicant submits that all prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention have had their sentences reviewed by the Home Office. However, only six cases were found to warrant a reduction of sentence. In some of these cases, the sentence was reduced from fourteen years to ten years, which corresponded to the maximum term under Section 37 of the 1967 Act. The applicant maintains that a person serving a sentence of preventive detention enjoys considerably more freedom than ordinary prisoners from whom he is kept apart. According to him, the offenses of which he was convicted would normally have warranted a term of seven years' imprisonment, had not the judge chosen to sentence the applicant to preventive detention in order to protect the public, knowing that such a sentence entailed more freedom. The applicant claims that since a sentence of preventive detention is no longer legal, the committal order under which he is held is no longer legal. He further contends that a sentence of preventive detention passed prior to the entry into force of the relevant provisions of the 1967 Act must be altered to conform with the legal maximum of the Act. Consequently, he should, in any event, not be forced to serve more than ten years. According to the applicant, the Home Office has recognised, by reducing certain sentences of fourteen years to ten years, that penalties under the new Act were intended to be less severe than the 1948 Act. Common justice thus demands a pro-rata reduction of all preventive detention sentences. The applicant does not invoke any specific Article of the Convention. THE LAW Whereas, insofar as the applicant can be said to complain of the sentence imposed at the Birmingham Assizes on .. June, 1966, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the Court of Appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this complaint was given in January, 1967; whereas the present application was not submitted to the Commission until 27th June, 1968, that is, more than six months after the date of this decision; Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this part of the application has been lodged out of time (Article 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention); Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains that he is improperly detained in prison, it is clear that the applicant is detained after conviction by a competent court and in accordance with his sentence and that his detention is accordingly not the consequence of any arbitrary action by the authorities; whereas, therefore, his detention is "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a), of the Convention; Whereas, furthermore, it is to be observed that the sentence of preventive detention was imposed in 1966 in accordance with the law then in force; Whereas no further sentences of preventive detention could be imposed after the date the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, came into force; Whereas this did not, however, affect the validity of such a sentence already imposed which, by virtue of the statute, for purposes of detention, release, recall and otherwise, was to be treated as a sentence of imprisonment of the same length as the original sentence; Whereas, insofar as the applicant maintains that the principle by which extended imprisonment is limited to ten years, should be applied to him, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, does neither reveal that the applicant is being subject to a more severe form of punishment than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed, contrary to Article 7, paragraph (1) (Art. 7-1), of the Convention, nor can he claim to be subject to discrimination on grounds set out in Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention; Whereas, it follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE