THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a German citizen born in 1929 and at present detained

in a labour institution in N.

It appears that the applicant on .. November 1963, was taken, at his

mother's request, to a hospital for inebriates. This measure was

immediately confirmed thereafter by the District Court (Amtsgericht)

of S. In April 1964 the same Court put the applicant under guardianship

for his dipsomania. The applicant had apparently lodged an appeal

(Berufung) against this decision but it seems that it had been

dismissed by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Nuremberg. After

having been kept for a certain period in this hospital the applicant

was released. On .. October 1967 the applicant was again put into the

above mentioned hospital and he was released from there on .. December

1967. It appears that the applicant, after his release, immediately

started begging since he allegedly lacked any means of subsistence.

Subsequently he was arrested because of this and taken to a labour

institution. No details as to these allegations, however, are available

since the applicant has not been in the position to submit any document

or judicial decisions in that respect; he alleges that he has lost them

because of his unsettled living conditions.

The applicant now complains that, owing to his detention, and his being

placed under guardianship, he is not in the position to exercise his

profession as a sailor. In particular, he states that he will not be

permitted to leave the Federal Republic, which was indispensable to him

because of this situation.

He alleges violations of Articles 1 to 4 of the Fourth Additional

Protocol.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant complains that owing to his present detention in

a labour institution he is not in the position to exercise his

profession as a sailor since he is not permitted to leave the Federal

Republic; whereas he alleges violations of his right guaranteed under

the Fourth Protocol to the Convention (P4); whereas the said Protocol

entered into force with respect to the Federal Republic of Germany on

1 June 1968; whereas it is consequently applicable in the present case

insofar as the alleged facts relate to a period after this date;

Whereas it is true that Article 2, paragraph (2), of the above

mentioned Protocol (P4-2-2) provides that "everyone shall be free to

leave any country including his own"; whereas, however paragraph (3)

of the same Article (P4-2-3) allows restrictions of this right where

such restrictions are in accordance with the law and are necessary in

a democratic society, inter alia, for the maintenance of ordre public;

whereas the refusal to release a lawfully detained person from a labour

institution is clearly a restriction within the meaning of paragraph

(3) of Article 2 (P4-2-3); whereas this interpretation is confirmed by

the Preparatory Works to the said Protocol from which it is clear that

the notion of "ordre public" was explicitly included to cover such

cases as that of the present applicant (see Doc. MC 65/16 p. A/18);

whereas consequently this application is manifestly ill-founded.

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE