THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicants may be summarised as

follows:

The first applicant is a German citizen, born in 1920, and residing at

Hutten. He is married to the second applicant and acts also on her

behalf.

On .. October 1967, the second applicant bought an agricultural area

of 4585 square metres from a farmer. The contract of sale was set up

by a notary at Schlüchtern;  in its point (6) it was mentioned that the

notary had informed the parties that the entry in the land register

depended upon a declaration of the Agriculture and Forestry's Office

(Land- und Forstwirtschaftsbehörde) that it waived its right of

pre-emption which this authority had under the terms of Article (6) of

the Land Settlements' Act (Reichssiedlungsgesetz). On .. December 1967,

the Agriculture and Forestry's Office informed the applicant that it

had decided to pre-empt the piece of land which the second applicant

had bought on .. October. In this decision (Bescheid) it was stated

that the applicant was not a farmer and that the area concerned was

farming land and that consequently it was in the public interest that

a farmer should acquire it in order to enlarge his farm.

It appears that the applicant was warned in this decision of his rights

to appeal to the competent court against this decision but apparently

the applicant failed to do so. The applicants subsequently lodged

numerous complaints with several ministers, the federal president, and

other authorities, stating that they had been deprived of their

validity acquired property. They requested to get the unlimited

possession of the land concerned but apparently they had no success.

In May 1968 the Land Settlement Agency of Nassau (Nassauische

Siedlungsgesellschaft) who acted on behalf of the above mentioned

office, asked the applicants whether they would take on lease the area

concerned. The applicants apparently refused to do this.

The applicants then requested legal aid from the Regional Court

(Landgericht) of Hanau in order to institute proceedings against the

Land Settlement Agency for restitution of the above-mentioned piece of

land. By decision of .. October 1968, the Court rejected the

applicants' request for lack of reasonable prospects of success. The

Court stated that the right of pre-emption of the Agriculture and

Forestry's office was validly based in the Land Settlements' Act and

that the Land Settlement Agency of Nassau therefore had correctly

acquired the area concerned and that it was under no legal obligation

whatsoever to restore it to the applicants. On the applicants' appeal

the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Frankfurt confirmed this

decision. The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht), requesting the recovery of their property.

The Court, however, on .. December 1968, did not accept the appeal for

decision since it was inadmissible.

The applicants now complain that they have been deprived of their land

which they had validly acquired. They allege a violation of Article 1

of the First Additional Protocol.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the applicants' complaints relating to the

alleged deprivation of their property by the Land Settlement Agency of

Nassau, 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 appeal in time to the courts of against the decision of the

Agriculture and Forestry Office of .. December 1967; whereas therefore,

he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law

whereas, moreover, 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 the applicants also complain that they were refused free legal

aid for the proceedings before the Regional Court of Hanau concerning

their compensation claim;  whereas, in examining this complaint, the

Commission has had regard both to Article 6, paragraph (1) and to

Article 6, paragraph (3) (c) (art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention;

Whereas, in respect of Article 6, paragraph (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c), 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 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 right, subject to certain conditions, to be granted

free legal assistance;

Whereas, however, as to Commission has frequently stated that 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 the application, insofar as it relates to Article 6, paragraph

(3)(c) (Art. 6-3-c), is incompatible with the provisions of the

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

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE