THE FACTS

Whereas, the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1924 and at present detained

in prison in Bremen. He is represented by Mr. S., a lawyer practising

in Hanover and acting under a power-of-attorney dated .. September

1968.From statements and from documents submitted, it appears that on ..

January 1966 the applicant was convicted by the Regional Court

(Landgericht) of Bielefeld for having committed fraud in fifteen cases

and as being a recidivist and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

Subsequently, on .. December 1967 he was convicted by the Regional

Court of Hanover for having committed fraud in sixty-four cases and as

being a recidivist and sentenced to four and a half years'

imprisonment.

The applicant's complaints under the Convention are concerned with the

execution of his sentences. He states that, after having been in

detention on remand at Bielefeld from .. July 1965 until .. January

1966 he was conditionally released.

His conditional release was revoked on .. June 1966 and he was arrested

again on .. August 1966. He was detained at Luttringhausen, and

subsequently in Bremen and Hamburg until .. October 1966 when he was

again released on condition. On .. January 1967, he was re-arrested and

committed to prison in Hanover.

It appears, however, that under Article 24, paragraph (1) of the

Ordinance relating to the Execution of Sentences

(Strafvollstreckungsordnung), Bremen and not Hanover is the proper

place of detention in the applicant's case. Consequently, the

authorities intended in December 1967 to transfer the applicant to the

prison at Bremen Oslebshausen. The applicant who preferred to stay at

Hanover prison where he took part in a special programme for the

re-education of prisoners, made an application to the Attorney General

(Generalstaatsanwalt) at Celle for the permission to remain at Hanover.

This was refused on .. January 1968. The applicant then made an

application to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at Celle under

Article 23 of the Introductory Law to the Judiciary Act

(Einführungsgesetz zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz)  for a judicial

decision on the Attorney General's refusal of permission to be detained

at Hanover prison. This application was refused by decision of .. March

1968. Both authorities held that there were no special reasons which

would justify a deviation from the normal execution of the applicant's

sentence in accordance with the applicable law.

The applicant was transferred to Bremen on .. April 1968. However, the

Bremen prison authorities considered that they were not competent to

take him and sent him back to Hanover on .. April 1968. The next day,

on .. April 1968 the Hanover authorities transferred him again to the

prison in Bremen Oslebshausen.

On .. May 1968, the applicant complained again to the Attorney General

at Celle of his transfer. By letter of .. June, 1968, from the Attorney

General's office, he was informed that the authorities were bound by

the Court of Appeal's decision of .. March 1968. The fact that he had

been sent back to Hanover and again transferred to Bremen, was

regrettable but it was the result of a failure on the part of the

Bremen prison authorities to appreciate properly the legal and factual

situation in the case for which this office was not responsible.

The applicant then petitioned the Minister of Justice of Lower Saxony

(Der niedersächsische Minister der Justiz) whose office replied by

letter of .. August 1968 rejecting the petition.

The applicant now complains that his private and family life has been

violated by reason of his transfer to Bremen. He explains that he had

served a considerable part of his sentence at Hanover prison where he

was allowed to participate in a social group programme calculated to

re-educate prisoners and re-establish  them in their normal life. Such

a programme did not exist in the Bremen prison. The applicant further

alleges that he was a particularly sensitive person and seriously ill

and that, according to medical opinions, any excitement would put his

life to danger. It was therefore irresponsible of the authorities to

transfer him to Bremen, then back to Hanover and finally again to

Bremen. Moreover, this transfer had not been necessary since he was

serving a sentence which had been imposed on him by the Hanover Court.

In any event, the provisions of the Act relating to the Execution of

Sentences should not be the decisive factor for determining where a

prisoner should serve his sentence. This question should rather be

governed by principles concerning the well-being and the human dignity

of the prisoner concerned as well as his re-establishment in normal

life.

The applicant makes it clear that he is not complaining of the refusal

by the authorities to be detained in a particular prison. He alleges

that the facts in his case amount to a violation of his rights under

Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint relating to his

detention in the prison at Bremen-Oslebshausen rather than in the

prison at Hanover 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 no right to be detained in a

particular prison is as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission

refers to its previous decision No. 2412/65, Collection of Decisions,

Vol. 23, pages 38, 40; whereas it follows that this part of the

application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention

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

Convention.

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that his private and

family life have been violated by reason of his transfer to another

prison, the Commission finds that an examination of the case does not

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

forth in the Convention and, in particular, in Article 8, paragraph (1)

(Art. 8-1);

Whereas it is true that under Article 8, paragraph (1) (Art. 8-1) of

the Convention "everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life ...";

Whereas the Commission points out, however, that there is nothing in

the facts of the case, as they have been presented, to suggest that the

applicant's family life has in any way been affected by his transfer

to Bremen;

Whereas, with regard to the alleged breach of the applicant's right to

a private life, the Commission observes that it is an inherent feature

of lawful imprisonment that a prisoner should be restricted in his

private life; whereas the Commission finds that the transfer of a

prisoner from one prison to another with the consequence that he must

give up certain privileges which are granted in one prison but not in

the other, does not disclose any appearance of a breach of the right

to private life;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is manifestly

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

of the Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the applicant's complaints an

examination of the case as it has been submitted including an

examination made ex officio, does equally not disclose any appearance

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

and in particular in Article 13 (Art. 13); whereas if follows that this

part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the

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

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE