THE FACTS

Whereas the facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1934 in Rumania, and at

present detained in prison in Hanover. He has several previous

convictions.

On 29th March, 1966, he lodged with the Commission an application under

Article 25 of the Convention which was registered, on 7th July, 1966,

under file No. 2840/66. In this application, the applicant complained

in substance of the situation set out below.

On 10th July, 1967, the Commission decided to strike the application

off he list on the ground that the applicant had shown no interest in

its maintenance. In fact, the applicant had last written to the

Commission on 9th January, 1967, and there had been no further

correspondence from him since that time. Efforts on the part of the

Commission's Secretary to obtain further information from him as to his

complaints had failed, a letter of 6th April, 1967, sent to the prison

at Kassel where the applicant was then detained, having been returned

with the remark on the letter: "inconnu" - "unbekannt".

The Commission further found that there appeared to be no reasons of

a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which

would necessitate a further examination of his case.

By letter of 22nd July, 1968, the applicant addressed himself again to

the Commission. The letter was sent from prison in Hanover and

contained further requests for assistance. In a further letter of 24th

September, 1968, the applicant made further complaints concerning the

criminal proceedings against him in Kassel supplementing his previous

submissions with regard to both the facts and his allegations as to

violations of the Convention. He also indicated his interest to pursue

his previous application and requested the Commission to deal with the

merits of his case and to examine in particular the consistency with

the provisions of the Convention of certain new complaints relating to

his detention in Hanover.

The facts as they have now been presented by the applicant may be

summarised as follows:

From his statements and from documents submitted by him, it appears

that, on 16th October, 1965, he was arrested on suspicion of having

committed theft and illegally possessing firearms, and remanded in

custody. On 4th January, 1966, he was indicated on these charges and

by decision (Beschluss) of .. February, 1966, proceedings were opened

against the applicant before the Regional Court (Landgericht) at

Kassel. By the same decision, the Regional Court decided that his

detention on remand should continue for the reasons indicated in the

Court's decision of .. January, 1966.

On .. March, 1966, the applicant was convicted by the First High

Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court (1. grosse Strafkammer des

Landgerichts) on the charges of having committed aggravated theft, as

being a recidivist and in conjunction with others (gemeinschaftlicher

schwerer Diebstahl im Rückfall) and of receiving stolen goods

(Hehlerei) in conjunction with illegally possessing firearms. He was

sentenced to a total of 25 months' penal servitude (Zuchthaus). In the

grounds of the decision, the Court stated that the applicant's guilt

with regard to the theft charge was established beyond any reasonable

doubt (mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit).

The applicant lodged an appeal (Revision) against this decision with

the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof). By decision (Urteil) of ..

October, 1966, the Federal Court quashed the conviction insofar as it

related to the charge of having committed aggravated theft, as being

a recidivist and in conjunction with others and set aside the sentence.

The Court considered that it was sufficient only to be convicted of the

applicant's guilt "beyond any reasonable doubt", but that the trial

court had to be certain or otherwise acquit the accused for lack of

evidence in accordance with the principle:  in dubio pro reo. It sent

the case back to the Regional Court at Kassel for further hearing and

decision.

It appears that the proceedings before the Regional Court at Kassel,

insofar as they had been sent back to the said Court for further

hearing and decision, were provisionally discontinued on .. August,

1968, in accordance with Article 154, paragraph 2 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The Court held that, in view of the fact that, on

.. August, 1968, the applicant had been convicted by the District Court

(Schöffengericht) of Hanover and sentenced to two and a half years'

imprisonment, it was no longer necessary to determine the theft charge

against the applicant and to sentence him for that offence.

It further appears that the applicant expected two judges of the

Regional Court at Kassel to have been biased. It appears that the

applicant had come to this conclusion by virtue of the fact that both

judges had ordered his continued detention on remand by decision of ..

October, 1966, on the ground that the danger of flight persisted, the

applicant having to expect a sentence which exceeded by far the period

of his detention on remand. Consequently, on 14th December, 1966, he

lodged applications with the Regional Court at Kassel challenging the

presiding judge and one associate judge of that Court. His applications

were rejected by the Regional Court at Kassel on .. December, 1966, as

being ill-founded.

It appears that the applicant was also dissatisfied with the conditions

and his treatment in the prison where he was detained on remand. In his

letters of 18th April, 1966 and 29th June, 1966, to the

Attorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt) at Frankfurt/Main the applicant

complained that certain sanitary installations in his cell were

inadequate, that his cell was cleaned only once a week, that a prison

guard, on one occasion, had treated him arbitrarily, that wireless

earphones were installed in the cells, instead of toilets which would

have been more useful, that a letter to the Commission was delayed

because he had stamps in his possession, that another prisoner was put

in his cell who was suffering from a venereal disease and that the

prison authorities rejected his request to remove this man from his

cell. He further complained that he had been required to strip naked

in front of three prison guards, that subsequently he was placed in

solitary confinement, and , finally, that his previous complaint of the

conditions in prison to the Attorney-General was held back.

These complaints were referred to the Director of the Prison at Kassel

(Direktor der Straf- und Untersuchungshaftanstalt Kassel) who, by

letter of 18th July, 1966, replied to each of the points raised by the

applicant indicating that certain complaints relating to sanitary

conditions had, in the meanwhile, been remedied, and that other

allegations were either ill-founded or untrue.

The applicant now complains:

-  that he was wrongfully detained on remand;

-  that he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced;

-  that the proceedings concerned were unlawful in that -

he was subjected to degrading treatment and insulted by the Court;

he was unable to understand the statements made by the Public

Prosecutor (Staatsanwalt) in court because he spoke a Saxon dialect;

-  that he was subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment in prison.

He also complains that he was wrongfully detained during a period of

15 months and eight days. In this respect, he explains that the

separate sentence for theft which had been imposed on him by the Kassel

Regional Court on .. March, 1966, had amounted to two years' penal

servitude. The separate sentence for receiving stolen goods had been

fixed at four months' penal servitude. The conviction on that theft

charge had been quashed and subsequently the prosecution thereof had

been discontinued. Since, however, he had been detained from 16th

October, 1965 to 24th January, 1967, his detention on remand during

that period had been unlawful insofar as it exceeded four months.

The applicant alleges generally violations of the Convention and also

claims compensation for his wrongful detention during the proceedings

before the courts at Kassel.

THE LAW

Whereas, the Commission first considered the question whether or not

the applicant was entitled to a reopening of his case and an

examination by the Commission of the admissibility of his application;

Whereas the Commission had regard to its jurisprudence establishing

that the Convention does not provide means for such reopening, either

by the Commission or on appeal to another body, where the application

has been declared inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of

Article 27 (Art. 27) of the Convention (see Application No. 3806/68,

Collection of Decisions, Vol. 27, pages 139, 142);

Whereas the Commission finds that the above jurisprudence does not

apply to applications which have been struck off the list on the ground

that the applicant failed to show an interest in its maintenance;

Whereas in such cases, the Commission also satisfies itself that there

are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which would necessitate a further examination of the

applicant's complaints;

Whereas the Commission finds that an applicant may have his application

restored to the Commission's lists of cases where the circumstances of

the case as a whole so justify such restoration;

Whereas, in the present case, the applicant, by letter of 24th

September, 1968, indicated that he was, in fact, still interested in

the Commission's examination of his application; whereas the Commission

finds that, in the circumstances, his application should be restored

to its list of cases;

Whereas the Commission next examined the admissibility of the

application;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was unlawfully

detained during a period of fifteen months and eight days, it is to be

observed that, 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; and whereas the applicant failed to show that he

raised this complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court invoking

Article 104 of the Basic Law; whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted

the remedies available to him under German law;

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

of his detention on remand during the proceedings against him at

Kassel, it is again to be observed that, 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; and whereas the applicant

equally failed to show that he raised this complaint before the Federal

Constitutional Court;

Whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies available

to him under German law;

Whereas, 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 in either case the domestic remedies at his

disposal;

Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic

remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3)

of the Convention has not been complied with by the applicant in

respect of either of these complaints;

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

conviction and sentence for receiving stolen goods, an examination of

the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex

officio, does not 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; whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions

complained of, the Commission has frequently stated that in accordance

with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure

observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the

Convention; whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with

an application alleging that errors of law of fact have been committed

by domestic courts, except where the Commission considers that such

errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights

and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas in this

respect, the Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v.

Belgium - Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria -

Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no

appearance of any such violation in the present case; whereas it

follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

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

Convention;

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

conviction and sentence for theft, as well as to the court proceedings

concerned, the Commission observes that his conviction and sentence for

that offence has been set aside by decision of the Federal Court, dated

5th October, 1966; and by virtue of the Kassel Regional Court's

decision of 22nd August, 1968; whereas, consequently, the Commission

finds that the applicant is not a victim in this respect of a violation

by the Federal Republic of Germany of the rights and freedoms set forth

in the Convention; whereas it 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;

Whereas the applicant further complains of the conditions in prison at

Kassel; whereas the Commission has already stated that, under Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after

all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally

recognised rules of international law; and whereas the applicant failed

to show that he pursued his complaints before the competent German

courts or authorities; whereas, therefore, he had not exhausted the

remedies available to him under German law; whereas, 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; whereas, therefore,

the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in

Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention has

not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas, in any event, in regard to the above complaint, an examination

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

officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights

and freedoms set forth in the Convention; whereas it 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

1. decides to restore this application to the list

2. declares this application inadmissible.