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 1923 and at present detained

in prison at S..

From his statements and from documents submitted by him it appears

that, on .. March 1969 he was convicted by the Regional Court

(Landgericht) of M. for having committed fraud and sentenced to five

years' imprisonment. It appears that the applicant wished to lodge with

the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) an appeal (Revision) against this

decision, but that his lawyer who had been appointed by the Court under

a grant of legal aid refused to submit the grounds of appeal

(Revisionsbegründung) as he considered the appeal as having no

prospects of success. Apparently, the applicant subsequently himself

submitted the grounds of appeal, but his appeal was declared

inadmissible by the Regional Court as not having been lodged by a

lawyer. No further particulars have been given in this respect.

It appears that, in the meanwhile, the applicant had made an

application to the Regional Court of M. for the appointment of another

lawyer. This was refused on .. June 1969. The Court explained that,

under the applicable provisions of the law, a lawyer is justified in

refusing to submit the grounds of appeal where, after having given the

case careful consideration, he is convinced that an appeal would not

have any prospects of success. The Court found that, in the present

case, there was no indication that the lawyer concerned had failed

carefully to evaluate the prospects of success offered by the appeal.

The applicant considered that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced,

in particular owing to the fact that the Regional Court had failed to

summon or hear the evidence of witnesses on his behalf who had been

nominated by him. No further explanations have been given by the

applicant in this respect. He alleged that the presiding judge and

certain members of the M.. prison staff had unlawfully intercepted

letters which he had written and laid with the prosecuting authorities

criminal charges against the judge and the prison authorities

concerned. It appears, however, that the prosecuting authorities

refused to prosecute on these charges.

It further appears that the applicant had also made an application for

retrial (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) which was rejected by final

decision of the Court of Appeal dated .. March 1970. Further

submissions concerning the application for retrial and also an

application to prosecute the Regional Judge for perversion of justice

(Rechtsbeugung), which was addressed to the Public Prosecutor's office

at M. was returned by that office on .. March 1970, with the

observation that it was not possible in the future to deal with

applications that do not satisfy the formal requirements imposed by the

law and thus do not offer the slightest prospects of success.

Concerning the charges against the Regional Judge the Public

Prosecutor's office (Staatsanwaltschaft) at M. apparently discontinued

proceedings on .. May 1970 and this decision was confirmed by the

Attorney General (Generalstaatsanwalt) in K. on .. November 1970.

Furthermore, it appears that on .. November, and .. December 1969 and

.. January 1970, the applicant made various complaints to the judicial

authorities in B. concerning his correspondence and criminal offenses

which were allegedly committed or their committal concealed by the

authorities. In its decision (Bescheid) of.. February 1970, the

Ministry of Justice of B.. dealt with these allegations and found that

they were without any foundation.

Complaints

The applicant now complains that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced

and that the Convention has been violated by reason of the court

proceedings concerned. He explains that the Regional Court deliberately

failed to hear certain witnesses on his behalf whom he had nominated.

He does not indicate, however, the names of these witnesses and what

evidence they were expected to give.

The applicant  also seems to complain:

- that his right to respect for his correspondence has been violated

  in that the prison authorities refused him a sufficient quantity of

  stamps enabling him to keep up his necessary voluminous business

  correspondence;

- that he is a worshipper of light (Lichtanbeter) and that the prison

  authorities refused him the right to practice his religious belief;

- that the prison authorities refused him spectacles which the doctor

  had prescribed him with the consequence that he suffers pain and is

  unable to work and acquire any earnings.

The applicant alleges in these respects violations of Articles 6 (3)

(d), 8 (1) and 9 (1) of the Convention.

Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.

4. In this respect he explains that, on .. October 1968 he was arrested

at 2.30 a.m. for driving without permit. He was allegedly detained

until the afternoon of the same day awaiting the result of an alcohol

test which turned out to be negative. He alleges that, as a result of

his detention he was unable to perform various short-term contracts

which he had made in connection with the purchase and construction of

a house. This apparently led to his conviction and sentence for fraud,

but no further explanations have been given by the applicant in this

respect.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained that he was wrongly convicted and

sentenced by the Regional Court of M.. However, in regard to the

judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, the Commission has

frequently stated that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the

Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the

obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In particular,

the Commission is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention. In this respect, the Commission refers to its constant

jurisprudence (see e.g. decisions on the admissibility of applications

No. 458/59, Yearbook, Vol. 3, pp. 222, 232 and No. 1140/61, Collection

of Decisions, Vol. 8, pp. 57, 62). In the present case, the Commission

finds that there is no appearance of any such violation in connection

with the decisions complained of.

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the

applicant. It follows that, even assuming that the applicant has

exhausted the remedies available to him under German law, this part of

the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article

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

2. The applicant has further complained that his lawyer failed to act

in accordance with his instructions in that he refused to submit to the

Federal Court the grounds of appeal. However, under Article 25 (1)

(Art. 25-1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an

application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of

individuals, where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the

Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set forth in the

Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the

Commission. The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications

directed against private individuals. In this respect the Commission

refers to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. the decisions on

admissibility of applications No. 172/56, Yearbook, Vol. I, pp. 211,

215 and No. 1599/62, Yearbook, Vol. 6, pp. 348 356.)

It follows that this part of the application incompatible ratione

personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 (2)

(Art. 27-2).

3. The Commission has also considered whether the alleged conduct of

the lawyer concerned could have involved the responsibility of the

Federal Republic of Germany under the Convention. In this connection,

the Commission considered whether the courts failed, by reason of the

alleged refusal on the part of the applicant's lawyer to submit the

grounds of appeal, to ensure that the applicant had a fair hearing of

his case within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of

the Convention.

Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) provides that "in the determination of any

criminal charge against him ... everyone is entitled to a fair ...

hearing ...".

However, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission

may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been

exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international

law.

In the present case the applicant failed to submit this point to the

Federal Constitutional Court by means of a constitutional appeal

invoking Article 103 (1) of the German Basic Law, and has, therefore,

not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law. Moreover,

an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an

examination made ex officio, does not disclose the existence of any

special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from

exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this

respect be rejected under Article 27 (3) (Art. 27-3), of the

Convention.

4. The applicant has also complained that the M. Regional Court failed

to hear certain witnesses on his behalf, contrary to the provisions of

Article 6 (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention. That Article provides

that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right "to

examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the

attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same

condition as witnesses against him".

However, the Commission has consistently held that this provision does

not give an accused person a general right to call witnesses on his

behalf and, in particular, does not allow an accused to call persons

who are not in a position to assist by their statements in elucidating

the truth (see, for example, Decisions of the Commission on the

admissibility of application No. 617/59, Hopfinger v. Austria,

Yearbook, Vol. 3, p. 370).

The applicant in the present case has failed to give any particulars

as to which witnesses he wished to call and what evidence they were

expected to give.

An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been

submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 6 (Art. 6).

It follows that, even assuming that the applicant had exhausted the

domestic remedies available to him, this part of the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

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

5. The applicant has furthermore complained that the prison authorities

and the presiding judge at the Regional Court at M. interfered with his

correspondence in that letters which he had written were intercepted

and he was refused a sufficient quantity of stamps in prison enabling

him to keep up his necessary and voluminous business correspondence.

However, in accordance with the Commission's constant jurisprudence,

it is an inherent feature of lawful imprisonment that a prisoner should

be restricted in his right of correspondence and a normal control of

a prisoner's correspondence including, in certain circumstances, the

stopping of letters sent by him has not been held to constitute a

violation of the Convention and, in particular of Article 8 (Art. 8).

In the present case no facts have been adduced to show that the

authorities concerned have in any way exceeded the discretion which

they have in controlling a prisoner's correspondence and an examination

by the Commission of the applicant's complaint in this regard as it has

been submitted does not therefore disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.

Again even assuming that the applicant has exhausted the domestic

remedies available to him, it follows that this part of the application

is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with

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

6. The applicant has then also complained that, contrary to the

provisions of Article 9 (1) (Art. 9-1) of the Convention, the prison

authorities have refused him the right to practice his religious belief

as a light worshipper.

However, the applicant again failed to give any details regarding this

complaint. In particular, he did not explain in what manner he wished

to practice his religious belief and in what way the prison authorities

refused him the right to do so.

Again, therefore, an examination by the Commission of the applicant's

complaint in this respect, as it has been submitted, does not disclose

any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in

the Convention and, in particular, in Article 9 (Art. 9).

It follows that this part of the application is equally manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

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

7. Finally, the Commission has examined the applicant's remaining

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

considering these complaints 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 these remaining parts of the application 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