THE FACTS

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

as follows.

The applicant is a citizen of the United States of America, born in

1916 and residing in Berlin.

From statements and documents submitted by the applicant, it appears

that on .. September 1956 while still in New York, he lodged an

application for compensation for damages suffered in Germany during the

Nazi time. Allegedly he was entitled to such a compensation on the

basis of the Federal Compensation Act (Bundesentschädigungsgesetz). He

alleges that his application was forged by his first lawyer because he

refused to give him a power-of-attorney and that his numerous

consecutive lawyers were never interested in his case. He himself then

came to Berlin and arranged formalities with the Compensation Office

and was informed that his application would be reconsidered (wieder

eingesetzt) as having been lodged in December 1964 but he was refused

permission to inspect his file himself. He then sought the services of

a new layer who again allegedly did not take any interest in the

progress of his case and when the applicant finally arrived in Berlin

in 1967 for permanent settlement, he discovered that nothing had been

done in his case.

His application for compensation was rejected by the Compensation

Office in April 1968 as having been lodged out of time. The applicant

raised an action before the Regional Court in Berlin (Landgericht)

which was dismissed on .. August 1968 allegedly due to the attitude of

his lawyer who appeared forty minutes late at the first hearing and on

the day of the hearing after the adjournment he again appeared with

delay and did not plead at all.

Thereafter the applicant obtained permission to inspect the dossier

himself. He allegedly discovered that several documents were removed

from his file by unauthorised persons and none of the officials of the

Compensation Office knew where these documents were. In a file note it

was further mentioned that some of the documents were transferred into

file J. but in fact such a file did not exist.

On .. October 1968 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision

of the Regional Court with the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht).

Allegedly the Court insisted that the applicant should appoint a lawyer

in order to represent him. The applicant instructed Mr. S., who,

however, allegedly did not follow his instructions and did not draw the

Court's attention to several arguments raised by the applicant. At a

later stage allegedly the lawyer tried to blackmail him and upon the

applicant's refusal, he informed the Court by letter of .. March 1969

that he did not represent the applicant any more.

On .. November 1969 the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal without an

oral hearing. It considered that since the applicant's lawyer, although

duly summoned did not appear, and since the representative of the Land

Berlin so requested the decision could be taken without an oral

hearing, according to the Federal Compensation Act. The applicant

submits that at the time he was not represented by any lawyer since Mr.

S. renounced his mandate on .. March 1969 and this was known to the

Court. He further alleged that it is not the representative of the

defendant who requested such a procedure. In fact, the President of the

Court suggested that in a way which did not leave any alternative open.

The applicant apparently did not make use of this possibility and

instead he lodged a constitutional appeal with the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) against both the

decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Supreme Court. His

appeal against the latter was rejected as being clearly ill-founded and

against the first for failure to exhaust the available remedies, i.e.

failure to present an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court through a

lawyer according to the relevant provisions.

In the written pleadings to the Federal Constitutional Court the

applicant argued that the provisions of the Compensation Act requiring

the applicant to be represented by counsel were contrary to the

provisions of the German Basic Law, in particular to Article 103 (1).

The applicant complains that the refusal by the Court of Appeal to

allow him to plead his case himself before it on the ground that his

representation by counsel was compulsory constitutes a violation of the

European Convention on Human Rights and in particular Article 6 (1).

Moreover, he submits that the provisions of the Compensation Act, which

compulsorily require the applicants to be represented by a lawyer,

constitute themselves a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant complains that, contrary to Article 6 (1)

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the Court of Appeal did not allow him to

plead his case before it himself, on the ground that his representation

by counsel was compulsory under the provisions of the Federal

Compensation Act (Bundesentschädigungsgesetz); whereas Article 6 (1)

(Art. 6-1) which provides for a fair hearing to any person involved in

proceedings to determine a civil right or obligation, does not debar

Contracting Parties from making regulations governing the access of

litigants to the courts, provided that such regulations do not in their

application violate the provisions of the Convention; whereas, it is

not the task of the Commission to examine in general whether the

relevant provisions of the Federal Compensation Act are in conformity

with the Convention;

Whereas, it is not the task of the Commission to examine in general

whether the relevant provisions of the Federal Compensation Act are in

conformity with the Convention (see Applications Nos. 727/60, in

Yearbook, Vol. 3, p. 302 (308);  2804/66, X. v. Federal Republic of

Germany, in Collection of Decisions, Vol. 27, p. 61 (72-73));  but

solely to determine the question whether the application of these

provisions in the present case violated Article 6 (1);

Whereas the Commission is therefore called upon to consider whether the

specific circumstances of the proceedings against the applicant

amounted to a denial of his right to a fair hearing in the

determination of a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 (1)

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

Whereas the question whether a claim for compensation for Nazi

persecution constitutes such a "civil right" has been raised, but not

decided in a previous decision of the Commission (see application No.

4045/69, Collection of Decisions, Vol.34, p. 33 (35-36)); whereas, even

assuming that the applicant's claim for compensation constitutes a

civil right within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention the Commission first notes that the applicant, although not

obliged to do so, instructed lawyers to represent him at the stage of

the original proceedings before the administrative authorities; whereas

the Commission further notes that the applicant also instructed counsel

to represent him, as required by the relevant legal provisions, before

the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal; whereas the Commission

considers that in the present case the applicant, although not

permitted to address the courts in person, was able fully to submit his

case to the court through a lawyer;

Whereas, therefore, the Commission finds that the compulsory

representation of the applicant by a lawyer before the Regional and

Appeal Courts does not constitute a violation of his right to a fair

hearing guaranteed by Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

Whereas it follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and

must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE