THE FACTS

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

as follows:

The applicant is a German citizen born in 1912 in Leipzig and at

present serving a life sentence for murder in prison in Munster.

From the voluminous statements and numerous documents submitted by the

applicant it seems that in 1949 he was convicted for having murdered

his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. Although at first he

confessed to this crime, he revoked his confession later during his

trial; finally, he was convicted on the basis of circumstantial

evidence. Since then he has tried to obtain a retrial, but he has

refused to make a petition for pardon for what he calls fundamental

reasons which he does not disclose.

1.   On .. July and .. August 1968 the applicant filed several

petitions and made proposals to various people and agencies regarding

working conditions and employment of prisoners. He proposed that

working groups of five or six prisoners should be formed within the

prison which would work preferably during normal working hours, as in

free enterprise and sell their products to merchants and people outside

the prison. Furthermore, the applicant proposed that any profit made

by a working group should be used by an individual member to pay his

debts, counsel fees and the cost of the criminal proceedings, a part

of the profits going to the prisoner's family.

The part of the petition concerning the applicant's proposal to allow

these groups to work during the normal working hours of the prison was

rejected by the Ministry of Justice of North-Rhine-Westphalia on ..

July 1968. A decision on the possibility of performing the work in the

inmates' spare time was left open. On .. February 1969, however, this

part of the petition was also refused by the Attorney General. In the

meantime the applicant had requested the Hamm Court of Appeal to decide

by "Beschluß" on his claims since the Attorney General had not replied

formally to this request. He also applied for legal aid. During that

time no steps were taken by the applicant to promote his projects. On

.. June 1969 the Hamm Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request

for legal aid and the request for a decision by the Court (Antrag auf

gerichtliche Entscheidung). The applicant's request to work during his

leisure time was also refused by the Court since the Attorney General's

decision was within his discretion and no abuse thereof was found by

the Court.

On .. November 1969 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) against this decision to the Constitutional

Court of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Verfassungsgerichtshof) alleging

violations of his basic and human rights. Moreover, the applicant

challenged the integrity of the judges in general. This constitutional

complaint was declared inadmissible on .. June 1970 because the

Constitution of North-Rhine-Westphalia does not provide for individual

appeals. The Court could not refer this matter to another court since

no relevant legal provision existed.

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde)

with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

against this decision and against the above decision of the Hamm Court

of Appeal. By decision of .. November 1970, however, the complaint was

declared inadmissible; as regards the decision of the Hamm Court of

Appeal, on the ground that the applicant had failed to complain within

the statutory period of one month against this decision:  with regard

to the decision of the Constitutional Court of North-Rhine-Westphalia

it was declared manifestly ill-founded since the applicant did not

explain how his right under Article 103 of the Basic Law had been

violated.

2.   In July 1968 the applicant filed a petition to the prison

authorities to receive 150 DM from his private money. He indicated that

it was senseless for him, under a sentence of life imprisonment, to

save his money in a reserve fund for his release, and he intended to

use this money to obtain new evidence for his retrial, to provide some

financial help for his sick sister in Leipzig, to obtain legal

assistance in connection with an invention he had made and in other

legal matters. This was refused by the prison authorities. On .. August

1970 the Hamm Court of Appeal confirmed this decision of the prison

authorities and the Attorney General. The Court stated that according

to No. 97 of the Standing Order concerning the execution of sentences

(Dienst- und Vollzugsordnung) the reserve fund saved by a prisoner was

intended to ensure that the prisoner had some funds at his disposal

after his release in order to prevent his falling into misery. In the

case of the applicant, the Court continued, this fund amounted only to

130 DM and even the fact of his life sentence did not justify the

applicant spending all this money. The Appeal Court finally held that

no indications could be found of the Prison Governor's abusing his

discretion when refusing the applicant's request. A constitutional

appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court, in

which the applicant alleged violation of his human rights, was rejected

as being manifestly ill-founded on .. November 1970.

3.   On .. June 1970, during the proceedings before the Hamm Court of

Appeal the applicant challenged the judges on grounds of bias and

presumptive partiality. He alleged that since the Minister of Justice

is the "employer" both of the prison authorities and the judges, it

followed that the latter could not reach an impartial and unbiased

judgment on matters concerning the prison authorities. On .. July 1970,

this challenge was rejected by other judges of the Hamm Court of

Appeal.

A further constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court

alleging that his right to independent, unbiased and impartial judges

had been violated and that he had not had an oral hearing, was rejected

by this Court on .. November 1970.

4.   On .. June 1970 the applicant filed an application for legal aid

for his application for retrial. The Regional Court (Landgericht) of

Dortmund rejected it on legal grounds on .. December 1970. An appeal

(Beschwerde) to the Hamm Court of Appeal was also rejected, since

German law does not provide for legal aid to be granted for such

proceedings.

5.   In proceedings before the Administrative Court

(Verwaltungsgericht) in Düsseldorf and the Administrative Court of

Appeal (Oberverwaltungsgericht) in Münster the applicant filed an

application for legal aid. He wished to have examined the question

whether his human rights were respected during his detention by the

court. Legal aid was not granted because his claim had no reasonable

chance of success.

6.   On .. September 1970 the applicant filed a petition to the

Minister of Justice of North-Rhine-Westphalia to commute his life

sentence to a shorter sentence. He also wanted to be transferred to an

open prison where he could work outside the prison walls. He intended

to pay for the surgery of his sister in Leipzig with the money thus

earned and to save the rest of it for his own social welfare. In

addition, he wanted to have the opportunity of performing fully paid

work in prison in order to achieve the above-mentioned aims. This was

rejected by the Minister of Justice and the President of the prison

authorities.

7.   In June 1970 the applicant wanted to take part in the general

elections of North-Rhine-Westphalia which were held on 14 June 1970.

(A modification of the General Criminal Law -

Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz, Article 90 - granted the right to vote to

prisoners with effect from 1 April 1970). His application for a voting

permit (Wahlschein) was nevertheless refused by the corresponding

authorities on .. May 1970. (The file does not indicate the reasons

given by the authorities, but it appears that they misinterpreted the

law). On .. June 1970 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint

with the Constitutional Court of North-Rhine-Westphalia with regard to

this matter but it was declared inadmissible by decision of .. June

1970, .. days after the elections.

On .. June 1970 the applicant filed a petition to the prison

authorities to obtain permission for fifty fellow prisoners who were

also prevented from voting, to sign a petition in order to challenge

the elections. According to the law in North-Rhine-Westphalia , this

had to be done within one month of the official declaration of the

election results.

On .. July 1970 the applicant made a formal complaint to the Hamm Court

of Appeal, since his petition was not answered by the prison

authorities and the matter was urgent in view of the expiring time

limit. This was rejected by the Hamm Court of Appeal on .. July 1970

because the applicant had failed to obtain a formal decision by the

prison authorities. This formal complaint to the prison administration,

dated .. July 1970, could not be taken into account by the Court. The

subsequent constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court

was declared manifestly ill-founded on .. November 1970.

At length, on .. July 1970, the President of the prison Administration

rejected the applicant's petition to collect the fifty signatures. He

held that this procedure would endanger the security and order

(Sicherheit und Ordnung) in the prison. The consequent decision of the

Hamm Court of Appeal given on the applicant's appeal has not been

submitted, and his constitutional complaint to the Federal

Constitutional Court is apparently still pending.

The applicant also filed an election petition and challenged the

lawfulness of the election. This was examined by the Parliamentary

Committee for Election Petitions (Wahlprüfungsausschuß) and declared

inadmissible since the applicant had failed to provide the necessary

fifty signatures supporting his objections. Moreover, the Committee

ruled that although the prison Administration acted unlawfully the

exclusion of the applicant and other prisoners could have no influence

on the election results. The ballot was therefore correct. The

applicant lodged a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court

of North-Rhine-Westphalia. During the proceedings he applied to the

Court to provide a lawyer for him and challenged the judges on grounds

of bias, since they took part in the above decision of .. June 1970.

This was rejected by the Court on .. February 1971. The Court's final

decision concerning his challenge of the election has not, however,

been submitted by the applicant.

8.   Numerous petitions by the applicant to receive social welfare

benefits during his detention were refused on different legal grounds.

Complaints

The applicant alleges violation of the following Articles of the

Convention:

Article 1 of the Convention because the Federal Republic of Germany is

not willing to secure the human rights set out in the Convention.

Article 2 because his right to live was denied, which he considers to

be more than a mere physical condition.

Article 3 because of his detention and since he was not allowed to help

his sister.

Article 4 in connection with the Social Charter because his right to

work had been violated.

Article 6 because no impartial and independent court acted in his case

and since he was not granted an oral hearing. Furthermore, he alleges

violation of Article 6 of the Convention because, in the proceedings

concerning his request to spend 150 DM from his private money, the

Court's decision was not given within a reasonable time (see above,

point 2).

Article 8 because he was not allowed to help his sick sister.

Article 10 because he was not allowed to listen to radio programmes of

his choice in prison.

Article 11 because he was not allowed to collect the signatures to

challenge the election and since he was not allowed to form working

groups within the prison.

Article 13 because the Constitution of North-Rhine-Westphalia does not

provide for an individual constitutional complaint against the

violation of human and basic rights, and the court did not refer the

matter to another court at his request.

Article 14 because the Hamm Court of Appeal did not reach a swift

decision on his request of .. July 1970  with regard to the challenge

of the elections (see above, point 7) although the matter was urgent.

He alleged that discrimination was thus a consequence of his detention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol because he could not promote his

invention and because his educational standard, a part of his

possessions, is suppressed by the authorities. Article 3 because he

could not participate and cast his vote in the above-mentioned

elections.

He further alleges violations of Articles 15, 17 and 18 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant has complained that his right to work has been

violated by the German authorities who refused him permission to

organise group-work of prisoners according to his ideas and

suggestions. In this respect, and in respect of the applicant's

complaints mentioned under paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 below, Article

25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention provides that it is only the

alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the

Convention that can be subject of an application presented by a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals. The right to

work, as invoked by the applicant, is not included among the rights and

freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in this respect the

Commission refers to its previous decision on the admissibility of

Application No. 1028/61, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 6, p. 69. It

follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

2.   The applicant has further complained that he was not given an

oral hearing on his request concerning his right to work in prison and

he has complained about other procedural aspects of these proceedings,

namely that the courts were biased against him, and thereby violated

his rights under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. The provisions

of this Article, however, apply exclusively to proceedings which deal

with "the determination of .. civil rights and obligations or .. any

criminal charge". Accordingly, they do not apply to the above mentioned

proceedings instituted by the applicant, since they determine neither

any criminal charge brought against him nor his civil rights and

obligations. As regards the latter, the Commission notes that in the

proceedings concerned the applicant requested the privilege not only

of working in prison but of having this work organised according to his

personal plans and ideas. These proceedings, therefore, are of an

essentially public law nature in view of the situation of the prisoner

who is subordinated to the prison administration and since all

privileges concerning prisoners are granted by the State in the course

of carrying out its duty to provide, in the public interest, adequate

forms of the execution of sentences which have been imposed under

criminal law on the persons concerned.

In this respect the Commission refers mutatus mutandis to its previous

decision on the admissibility of application No. 3959/69, Collection

of Decisions, Vol. 35, p. 109. This complaint is, therefore, also

incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

3.   The applicant has further complained that in respect of his

above-mentioned proceedings the German authorities refused to grant him

legal aid. He also complained that he was not granted such aid in

proceedings which he instituted in order to obtain a retrial and in

proceedings before the administrative courts.

It is true that, under Article 6 (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the

Convention, everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right,

subject to certain conditions, to be granted free legal assistance. In

the proceedings mentioned by the applicant, the latter was, however,

not a person "charged with a criminal offense" within the meaning of

the above-mentioned provision. Article 6 (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the

Convention is, therefore, not applicable in regard to his present

complaints. Furthermore the right to free legal aid in retrial

proceedings, administrative proceedings, and in proceedings such as

instituted by the applicant in respect to his work in prison, is not

elsewhere included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention. It follows that these complaints are also incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

4.   The same reasoning applies to the applicant's complaint that his

request that his life sentence should be commuted into a shorter

sentence with the Commission's established case-law, the right to a

similar measure of clemency is not as such guaranteed in the Convention

(see mutatis mutandis decision on the admissibility of application No.

2749/66, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 24, p. 85).

5.   The applicant further complained that he was not granted

permission by the prison authorities to spend 150 DM from his private

money for the purposes of assisting his sick sister, or of obtaining

new evidence for his retrial or for other legal matters. The Commission

has examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

which guarantees to everybody "the peaceful enjoyment of his

possessions". The same Article, however, also provides for the rights

of the State "to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the

use of property in accordance with the general interest". In this

regard the Commission took note of the reasons given by the German

courts for the above refusal, namely that the applicant should not be

allowed to spend all his savings since he should have some funds at his

disposal at the time of his release. It also noted that the Court of

Appeal had carefully examined the case and had found that the prison

governor had not used his discretion unreasonably or arbitrarily when

he refused the applicant's request. The Commission is of the same

opinion and therefore considers that this complaint of the applicant

is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph

(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention, since the restriction complained

of by the applicant was imposed upon him "in order to control the use

of his property in accordance with the general interest".

6.   The applicant has also complained that he was not allowed to

participate in the general elections held in the German Land

North-Rhine-Westphalia on 14 June 1970. He alleges thereby a violation

of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3). The Commission has examined this

complaint under this Article which provides that "The High Contracting

Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by

secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression

of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature". In the

circumstances of this particular case, however, the Commission is of

the opinion that the exclusion of the applicant from the vote did not

affect the election result nor thereby the free expression of the

opinion of the people generally, consequently, this complaint is also

manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention, since there is not appearance of a violation of the

above-mentioned Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3).

7.   The applicant has next complained that the judges were biased

against him in the proceedings which he had instituted before various

German courts and other authorities in order to challenge the

lawfulness of the above elections. In this respect, however, the same

reasoning applies as stated above in paragraph 2. It follows that this

complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

Convention since these proceedings are of an essentially public law

nature and do not determine the applicant's civil rights or obligations

nor any criminal charge against him. Consequently, the procedural

guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6), which provides for a "fair and public

hearing", are not applicable.

8.   The applicant's further complaint that on numerous occasions he

was refused social welfare benefits by the German authorities is also

incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention,

since no right to such benefits is, according to the Commission's

established case-law, guaranteed thereby (see decision on the

admissibility of application No. 1241/61 of 8 May 1962.).

9.   The Commission has finally examined the applicant's various

remaining complaints as they have been submitted by him. However, after

considering them as a whole, the Commission finds that they do not

generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms set forth in the Convention.

It follows that they are as a whole manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION

INADMISSIBLE