THE FACTS

Whereas the fact as presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1900, and resident in

Frankfurt/Main.

The applicant who is of the Jewish faith had lodged with the Commission

a previous application (no. 3175/67) in which he complained of the

amount of compensation for Nazi persecution which had been awarded to

him. On 6 February 1968, the Commission declared inadmissible his above

application on the ground that it had no competence under the

Convention to examine his claim for compensation (Article 27, paragraph

(2) of the Convention) and, insofar as certain court decisions were

concerned, the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available

to him under German law (Articles 26 and 27 paragraph (3) of the

Convention).

The applicant's present application is concerned with the living

conditions in the Old People's Home where he resided from .. September

1967, to early 1968. It appears that, on .. September 1967, the

applicant was committed by the Social Administration (Sozialverwaltung)

in Frankfurt/Main to the Old People's Home of the B. Foundation in

Frankfurt. According to the applicant, the Jewish Community had assured

him that he would receive strict kosher food at that home but this

promise had not been kept.

Moreover, when he moved into the home, the caretaker had stored his

suitcases and in particular, a carton with Jewish kosher dishes and had

never returned these objects. When he had notified the police most, but

not all, of the dishes, had been found in one of his suitcases, and it

had been obvious that they had been used in the meanwhile.

The applicant then intended to bring an action against the B.

Foundation alleging that, since he provided his own food, he should not

be required to pay full rent. Furthermore, the Home should return the

objects which the caretaker had taken into his custody and refused to

return. For that purpose he made an application to the District Court

(Armenrecht) which was refused on .. December 1968. The Court held

that, in the applicant's case, the legal relationship was not a

landlord - tenant relationship governed by private law, but a committal

under public law in accordance with the social assistance legislation.

It had therefore no competence to deal with the question of what

contribution should be paid to the home. In any event, there was no

basis for any complaint since the court had before it statements of two

rabbis who both confirmed that only strict kosher food was served at

the home. As regards the missing objects, the court found that no

evidence had been submitted to the effect that these objects had even

been in the possession of the home. Consequently, the proceedings

proposed did not offer any reasonable prospects of success and legal

aid had to be refused.

The applicant now complains to the Commission that the conditions at

the home are wholly inadequate for an orthodox Jew like himself. He

explains that he is not given kosher food at the home and that he is

obliged to provide himself with such food. Consequently, he should not

be required to pay full rent. It was true that he received 3 DM per day

from the Social Office (Sozialamt) as allowance for his food but,

nevertheless, an amount of 17.50 DM per day for room and board, which

was actually paid, was far too much. Although the Social Office paid

that money directly to the home, it was still he who suffered the loss

since that amount was deducted from his monthly pension. Furthermore,

his bed had not been made on numerous occasions, although this was part

of the service which the home was required to give.

The applicant also complains that the authorities were responsible for

the loss of various objects and, in particular, his kosher dishes.

He further complains of the proceedings by which his application for

free legal aid had been refused. He explains that the first hearing was

cancelled because the judge had become ill. On the other hand, his

opponents, ie the managers of the home, were present at the second

hearing and he was not allowed to speak.

Without referring to any specific Articles, he alleges generally

violations of the Convention. He maintains in general that Jews are

subjected to differential treatment in the Federal Republic of Germany.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to the

conditions at the Old People's Home of the B. Foundation in

Frankfurt/Main, it is to be observed that the Convention, under the

terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms

set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article

25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation of one of

those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of

an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or

group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the

Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to a particular standard

of living conditions is as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of the

Convention is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within

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

Whereas insofar as the applicant's complaints are directed against the

Old People's Home as such and its employees, it results from Article

19 (Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the Commission is

to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken in the

Convention by the High Contracting Parties, being those Members of the

Council of Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited their

instruments of ratification; whereas, moreover, it appears from Article

25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), of the Convention that the Commission

can properly admit an application from an individual only if that

individual claims to be the victim of a violation of the rights set

forth in the Convention provided that the Party in question has

accepted this competence of the Commission has no competence ratione

personae to admit applications directed against private individuals or

institutions;

Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previous

decisions Nos. 172/56 (X. v. Sweden - Yearbook, Vol. I, p. 211) and No.

852/60 (X. v. Federal Republic of Germany ibid IV, p. 346);

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

an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any grounds on which

the alleged conduct of the said Old People's Home or its employees

could exceptionally entail the responsibility of the Government of the

Federal Republic of Germany under the Convention;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also

incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

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

Whereas the applicant further complains that he was refused free legal

aid in order to institute civil proceedings against the Old People's

Home and its caretaker; whereas, in examining this complaint, the

Commission has had regard to Article 6, paragraph (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c),

of the Convention; whereas in respect of this provision, it is to be

observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1),

guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the

Convention; and whereas under Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1),

only the alleged violation of one of those rights and freedoms by a

Contracting Party can be the subject of an application presented by a

person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals; whereas

otherwise this examination is outside the competence of the Commission

ratione materiae; whereas it is true that, under Article 6, paragraph

(3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the Convention, everyone charged with a

criminal offence has the rights, subject to certain conditions, to be

granted free legal assistance;

Whereas, however, as the Commission has frequently stated, the right

to free legal aid in civil cases is not as such included among the

rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas it follows

that this part of the application is again incompatible with the

provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

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

Whereas the applicant also complains that the provisions of Article 6

(Art. 6), of the Convention have been violated by reason of the court

proceedings relating to his application for free legal aid in that the

Frankfurt District Court failed to hear him but heard his opponents;

Whereas it is true that Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the

Convention gives to every person certain guarantees "in the

determination of his civil rights and obligations"; whereas, however,

the Commission has previously held that the claim to obtain free legal

aid is a claim to obtain assistance from public funds for the purpose

of litigation and that the proceedings under which such claim is

determined do not directly relate to a civil right or obligation (see

Application No. 3011/57; Collection of Decisions, Vol. 25, pages 70 and

74);

Whereas, therefore, these proceedings do not fall within the meaning

of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention and any

complaint in this respect is outside the Commission's competence

ratione materiae;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also

incompatible with the Convention 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