THE FACTS

Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant and appearing from the

documents submitted by him may be summarised as follows:

A. The applicant is a political refugee from the Soviet Union born in 1920 at

Boka in Turkestan and at present living in Bonn, where he works for the Press

Club. During the war he fought in the German army and after the defeat of

Germany he remained and hid in Germany in order to avoid expulsion or

extradition to the Soviet Union.

He is now represented by Rechtsanwältin Y., a lawyer practising at Beuel am

Rhein.

B. The applicant has lodged, on 17th January, 1961, a previous Application No.

1003/61 the facts of which were summarised as follows:

"1. Le requérant a réclamé depuis 1960 la tutelle sur son neveu Turdi X., né

le 18 janvier 1948, et sa nièce, Ursula X., née le 20 janvier 1947, mais en

vain.

Le père des enfants en question, Abadt X., vit depuis la guerre en Allemagne

où il s'est marié en 1947. Il a divorcé le .. avril, 9152, et a été placé, par

la suite, dans une maison de desintoxication alcoolique de Bayreuth. Il a été

cependant libéré sous condition.

Le .. avril, 9160, le Tribunal des tutelles de Munich (Amtsgericht) a déclaré

la déchéance de la puissance paternelle sur les enfants Turdi et Ursula X. et

a nommé, le .. mai, 1960, l'"Association pour la protection de l'enfant et de

la mère" (Verein für Kinder- und Mutterschutz) tuteur.

2. Le requérant a alors porté plainte, le .. juillet, 1960, auprès du Tribunal

régional I (Landgericht) de Munich. Dans son recours il a invoqué notamment le

lien de parenté entre lui et les enfants - il est le demi-frère d'Abadt X. -

et il a demandé de lui transférer la tutelle. X. a en outre affirmé que les

enfants étaient de confession musulmane et qu'il était inadmissible de les

éduquer dans une institution catholique. Il a demandé, en même temps, de

permettre aux enfants de fréquenter une école supérieure (Oberschule).

Le .. août, 1960, le Tribunal régional a ordonné au tuteur d'accepter

l'admission des enfants à une école supérieure de Munich. Une demande

ultérieure du requérant de restreindre davantage les droits du tuteur, ä

savoir de lui permettre la communication avec les enfants, a été repoussée le

.. août, 1960. Le Stadtjugendamt et la mère des enfants se seraient opposés Ã

un transfert de la tutelle au requérant.

Le .. janvier, 1961, la 13ème Chambre du Tribunal régional a rejeté le recours

du requérant du .. juillet, 1960. Le Tribunal a repoussé, en même temps, une

plainte d'Abadt X. du .. novembre, 1960.

Maître Z., avocat à Munich, a introduit, au nom du requérant de d'Abadt X., un

recours immédiat (sofortige Beschwerde) auprès de la Court d'appel suprême de

Bavière (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht).

Nous ne savons pas quelle suite a été donné au dernier recours.

3. Le requérant allègue une violation de la Convention, de la Loi relative Ã

l'Accord du 28 juillet, 1951, concernant le Statut des réfugiés et de la Loi

du 25 avril, 1951, relative au Statut des étrangers sans domicile.

En particulier, il se prétend victime d'une violation de l'article 6 (3) a. Il

n'aurait pas été "informé, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu'il

comprend et d'une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de

l'accusation portée contre lui". En outre, le procès se serait déroulé dans

une langue  qu'il ne comprenait pas et par la faute de son interprète il

n'aurait pu faire valoir ses droits de manière efficace. De façon générale,

l'éducation des enfants dans une institution catholique serait incompatible

avec leur confession.

4. Le requérant demande que tous les frais judiciaires soient pris en charge

et qu'on lui confie les soins de son neveu et de sa nièce."

His last communication concerning that application was dated .. March, 1962,

and a letter addressed to him by the Commission's Secretary of .. January,

1963, was returned marked  "parti sans laisser d'adresse".

Having particular regard to these facts, the Commission decided on 23rd

September, 1963, to strike Application No. 1003/61 off its list of cases.

C. On 11th August, 1066, the applicant wrote again and complained about a

different matter. The usual application form was sent to him on 19th August,

1966, but he returned the completed form only on 2nd April, 1967.

In his present application he resumes the subject of Application No. 1003/61

and raises a number of further matters without always making it clear whether

he wants to complain of them or only refers to them in connection with other

complaints.

I. As regards the custody of his nephew  and niece, the applicant repeats in

substance his submissions made in the previous application and submits some

further details.

He asks for a reconsideration of this complaint and states that in 1962/63 he

changed his address in Bonn four times but always informed the post office in

order to have mail forwarded to the new address. In spite of repeated requests

he has, however, not submitted an documentary evidence in this respect.

In addition to his previous submissions concerning the proceedings related to

the custody of the children, the applicant now alleges that two certificates

on a catholic baptism of the children of .. February, 1957, and .. May, 1953,

on which the courts had relied in their decisions, particularly the Regional

Court of Munich in its decision of .. January, 1961, were in fact falsified or

even non-existent. He affirms that these certificates indicate wrong dates of

birth of the children. He also alleges, as in his previous Application No.

1003/61, that according to the records of the children's home in Fürth the

mother had indicated in 1950 and 1953 that the children were Moslems. In his

view these facts prove that the certificates of baptism are falsified. In

particular, he submits that he was four times given a power-of-attorney to

represent his brother in questions relating to the children. He further states

that the responsible persons (Heimleiter) of the catholic institutions where

the children had been put on several occasions between 1954 and 1957 informed

the schools concerned in writing that the children were catholics and should

be educated accordingly. These requests were signed by the responsible persons

as "guardians", although the applicant's brother at this time was entitled to

exercise the paternal authority.

With regard to the subsequent proceedings it appears from the applicant's

present submissions that on .. July, 1961, upon his appeal the Bavarian

Supreme Court set aside the decision appointing as guardian the "Association

for the Protection of Children and Mothers" since technically not the

Association but only its managing committee (Vorstand) could have been

appointed. The Court sent the case back for reconsideration pointing out that

a guardian of this kind should only be appointed where no appropriate private

individual can be appointed. But it appears that on .. August, 1961, the

District Court appointed the managing committee of the same association

stating that no appropriate individual was available. The applicant obviously

never obtained the guardianship over his nephew and niece. On the contrary, by

further District Court decisions of .. January, 1963, and .. February, 1964,

he was refused and even forbidden any further contact with the children.

On .. December, 1963, the applicant lodged with the Public Prosecutor's Office

(Staatsanwaltschaft) in Munich, a request to prosecute three District Court

judges who had dealt with the issue of the guardianship, Mr. A., Dr. B. and

Dr. C., for "having estranged the children from the Islam"

("Entislamisierung") and for "acting as Soviet agents" ("Tätigkeit als

Sowjetfunktionäre"). On .. January, 1964, the Public Prosecutor's Office

informed him that there was no reason to institute criminal proceedings

against the judges. An appeal (Beschwerde) lodged by the applicant was

dismissed by the Attorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt) on .. March, 1964. It

does not appear that the applicant lodged a request for a judicial decision

(Klageerzwingungsverfahren) by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).

On .. September, 1965, the applicant represented by Mr. W., a lawyer

practising in Bonn, apparently requested that the District Court of Munich

should appoint him as a special curator (Pfleger) of the children in religious

questions. The Association appointed as guardian was heard and on .. November,

1965, opposed this request pointing out that the children themselves wished to

be catholic. Reference was made to the German Act covering the Religious

Education of Children, under which a child's religion may not be changed

against his will after the age of 12 and the child has the right to decide

freely on his religion after the age of 14. The applicant has given no

information on the decision taken by the Court in these proceedings. But

apparently his request remained without success.

II. In his present application the applicant further alleges that, on .. July,

1962, his half-brother Abad X. was deported to the Soviet Union.

In this respect, it appears that Abad X. had been convicted on .. July, 1962,

by the District Court of Munich, of having committed an offense in a state of

intoxication (Art. 330a of the Penal Code) and sentenced to 7 months'

imprisonment and committed to an institution for alcoholics. The applicant

alleges that the director of the "Association for the Protection of Children

and Mothers" which acted as guardian of the children, and the director of

Stadelheim Prison in Munich where Abad X. was detained had him deported to the

Soviet Union against his will.

According to the applicant, two declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..

February, 1962, indicating Abad X's consent to the repatriation had been

forged by the judges. He also contests the authenticity of a document of ..

April, 1961, in which Mrs. D. of Taschkent, the mother of Abad X. and

stepmother of the applicant, declares to the Soviet Embassy in Bonn that she

is willing to accommodate and support her son Abad X. As a result of this

declaration the Soviet Embassy had consented on .. May, 1962, to the

repatriation of Abad X. It appears that the expulsion was finally effected on

the basis of a decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich of ..

July, 1962. The applicant was not informed about the expulsion of his brother.

More than four years later, on .. September, 1966, after having received

copies of the two above-mentioned declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..

February, 1962, the applicant lodged with the Federal Attorney-General

(Generalbundesanwalt) a request to prosecute the unknown persons responsible

for what he considers the political deportation (politische Verschleppung) of

his brother. The matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in

Munich as being the competent authority and the enquiry was discontinued on ..

January, 1967, on the ground that there was no appearance of a criminal

offence. The Public Prosecutor stated that Abad X. himself had applied in

person to the Soviet Embassy for his repatriation. In this context the Public

Prosecutor also referred to the above-mentioned documents.

Also on .. January, 1967, the Public Prosecutor dismissed a further criminal

charge laid by the applicant against four District Court judges of Munich whom

he accused of having forged the declaration of Abad X. His brother, having

fought in the German army during the war, would never have signed a request

for repatriation.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his charges which on

.. January, 1967, was rejected by the Attorney-General at the Court of Appeal

(Generalstaatsanwalt). In the decision the applicant was informed of the right

of the victim of a criminal offence, under Article 172, paragraph 2, of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, to request a judicial decision by the Court of

Appeal (Klageerzwingungsverfahren). But it appears that he failed to lodge

such a request.

The applicant further states that he has only recently been granted access to

certain documents relating to his brother's deportation. On one of these

documents he has found a reference to "the efforts of the Eastern Powers to

repatriate political emigrants". He submits that this must be a reference to

an Agreement of 16th November, 1939, between the German Reich and the Soviet

Union concerning resettlement of certain populations in the "zones of

interest" of the two countries, or to some subsequent analogous agreement.

III. Further complaints of the applicant concern his obligation to pay alimony

for an illegitimate child Gabriel E. born on 17th May, 1952, and the civil and

criminal proceedings which were conducted against him in this respect.

After first having contested on .. July, 1952, being the father, since the

mother had also had relations with other men, he signed on .. July, 1952, on

the ground that he had only recognised the child since the mother Magdalena E.

had promised to marry him, but had, in fact, subsequently married another man.

In 1957 and 1959 the District Court of Fürstenfeldbruck increased the amount

of maintenance to 50 and 65 DM respectively.

In 1961 an action for a further increase was brought before the District Court

in Fürstenfeldbruck and subsequently referred to the District Court in Bonn

where the applicant had taken up residence. The applicant, although admitting

intimate relations with the mother of Gabriel E., contested being the father

of the child and the mother herself admitted having had relations with other

men.

On .. February, 1963, the Court obtained an expert opinion based on the blood

groups of the applicant and of the child and concluded that his paternity was

not excluded. On .. April, 1963, the Court decided to obtain from a university

institute of Munich a further expert opinion based on the hereditary

characteristics of the applicant and the child. But the applicant refused

several times to appear for the necessary examination in Munich since he had

understood from the institute charged with the examination that the opinion

could not come to any conclusions in view of his racial particularities as a

Turkestani. On .. March, 1964, the District Court in Bonn imposed a fine of

100 DM because of the applicant's refusal to appear for the examination, but

upon appeal this decision was quashed by the Regional Court on .. July, 1964.

On .. November, 1964, the applicant, when calling in person on the competent

District Court judge Mr. F., was informed that the decision of .. April, 1963,

concerning the opinion to be obtained from the Munich university institute had

been set aside, but that another expert opinion would be obtained in criminal

proceedings which had been instituted in Munich against the applicant for

failure to pay maintenance. In fact, the District Court judge, Dr. G., in

Munich decided only some days later on .. November, 1964, to obtain such an

expert opinion and informed the applicant only in mid-December of this

decision which had been known to the District Court judge F. in Bonn already

on .. November, 1964.

Thereupon, on .. December, 1964, the applicant challenged Mr. F., as being

prejudiced. This challenge was rejected on .. January, 1965, by the Regional

Court judge (Landgerichtsrat) H. The applicant lodged an appeal (sofortige

Beschwerde) which was rejected by the Court of Appeal on .. April, 1965.

In the meantime, on .. March, 1965, Professor Dr. I., the expert charged by

the District Court of Munich had given his expert opinion and concluded that,

in all probability, the applicant is the father of Gabriel E.

On .. July, 1965, the applicant then submitted that his relations with the

mother had in fact been outside the possible period of conception. He further

submitted that, when signing the declaration of paternity of .. July, 1952, he

had not intended to recognise the child as his own but to adopt it in view of

the intended marriage with the mother, which only had to be postponed pending

receipt of certain necessary papers. According to him he had misunderstood the

sense of the declaration due to his insufficient knowledge of German and the

court official had falsified the document.

In view of the applicant's previous attitude the District Court of Bonn

rejected these submissions as being untrue and gave judgment against the

applicant on .. July, 1965. This decision was given by Judge H. who in the

meantime had been moved from the Regional Court to the District Court and had

replaced Judge F. It appears that the applicant had unsuccessfully tried to

challenge him on the basis of Article 41, paragraph 6, of the Code of Civil

Procedure which excludes judges who have participated in a decision under

review.

The applicant appealed from the District Court judgment of .. July, 1965, to

the Regional Court and requested free legal aid for the appeal proceedings.

The latter request was rejected on .. July, 1966, on the ground that his

appeal offered no sufficient prospect of success. On .. July, 1966, the

Regional Court ordered a supplementary blood grouping test on the basis of two

new scientific methods (Duffy and Gmx). The Court requested the applicant to

pay within a certain time-limit 200 DM in advance for the expenses of this

expert opinion but the applicant failed to do so even after the Court had

extended the time-limit and only requested a further extension on the ground

that he could not afford the amount since he was on holiday. In view of the

fact that the case had already been pending since 1961 the Court informed the

applicant that no further extension could be granted, and when he failed to

comply with the order within the time-limit, it proceeded with the case on the

basis of the evidence previously obtained, in particular the two expert

opinions of .. February, 1963, and .. March, 1965.

On .. October, 1966, the Regional Court rejected his appeal and confirmed the

District Court decision that the applicant was to be considered as the father

of Gabriel E. The amount of maintenance to be paid for the child up to the age

of 18 was fixed at 80 DM per month as of .. March, 1963, at 90 DM as of ..

September, 1963, and at 100 DM as of .. January, 1966.

The applicant alleges an improper and illegal procedure by the Regional Court

of Bonn. In this respect he alleges that Judge H. who had first decided as a

Regional Court judge on the challenge against the District Court Judge F., and

later replaced that judge in the District Court and given the District Court

judgment, later acted again as judge of the Regional Court in the appeal

proceedings. According to the orders and the judgment given by the Regional

Court in the appeal proceedings, Judge H. did, however, not participate in any

of these decisions.

It appears that the applicant intended to challenge the judges of the Regional

Court panel dealing with his case, but that his first lawyer, Dr. W., then

withdrew from the case and that a new lawyer Mrs. V. although first appearing

prepared to challenge the judges finally failed to do so and apparently also

withdrew from the case.

In his application the applicant complains generally that the decisions as to

his paternity are wrong. He states that it is impossible, according to the

circumstances, that he was the father of Gabriel E. He quotes from statements

of certain scientists of Frankfurt who found that the expert opinion of

Professor I. was based on wrong assumptions. He complains that the expert

failed to examine early photographs of him and photographs of his relatives

and to compare them with the appearance of the child. With regard to the

document of .. July, 1952, according to which he had recognised that he was

the father, he repeats that this did not reflect properly his intentions and

declarations. He states that in the course of the proceedings before the

District Court of Bonn, he had "invalidated" ("kraftlos gemacht") this

declaration and the subsequent judgments on the basis of Article 6, paragraph

(3) (a), of the Convention. He accuses the judges who dealt with his case of

bias and hostility against foreigners in particular against political refugees

from the Soviet Union, and alleges that the paternity suit has been instigated

by Soviet agents who try to ruin him financially. He affirms that he has

suffered economic losses in the amount of 150,000 DM.

IV. The applicant further complains about the criminal proceedings conducted

against him in Munich both because of his failure to pay alimony for Gabriel

E. and because of defamation concerning Judge A.

In this respect it appears that on .. November, 1962, the Youth Welfare Office

of the City of Munich (Stadtjugendamt) in its capacity as guardian of Gabriel

E. laid with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Bonn charges against the

applicant of having failed to support the child (Unterhaltspflichtverletzung)

within the meaning of Article 170 b of the Penal Code. These charges were

referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich, apparently on the ground

that the charges also covered the period when the applicant was still living

in and near Munich. The applicant, however, considers this decision as a

violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provide

that criminal proceedings may also be conducted in the district where the

applicant actually has his residence or where he had been arrested. He also

considers that no criminal proceedings could have been instituted before the

civil paternity suit in Bonn had been finally decided.

At the District Court in Munich the case was first dealt with by Judge Dr. G.

The applicant questions the impartiality of this judge and alleges that the

judge's wife has been his opponent in the proceedings concerning the custody

of his niece and nephew but he has failed to explain this allegation. In

particular, he complains of the decision of .. November, 1964, by Judge Dr. G.

to obtain an expert opinion from Professor Dr. I. It appears that subsequently

the case was dealt with by another judge, Mrs. J., who on .. May, 1967,

convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 months' imprisonment for the

failure to pay maintenance for the child. The applicant was given credit for

a period of detention on remand from .. October to .. November, 1965, and the

remainder of the sentence was suspended on probation. The applicant has failed

to provide any details with regard to his arrest and detention on remand but

complains that, as a consequence, he lost both his employment and his

apartment and was even refused unemployment benefits for 4 weeks since he

refused to accept a job as dish-washer.

By the District Court judgement of .. May, 1967, the applicant was also

convicted of having made defamatory statements (üble Nachrede) about District

Court Judge A. of Munich who had dealt with the proceedings concerning the

custody of his niece and nephew. In a letter to a superior he had called Judge

A. a "liar" and accused him of having intimate relations with the divorced

wife of Abad X. and of having conspired with her with a view to having the

children brought to the Soviet Union.

The applicant lodged with the Regional Court of Munich I an appeal (Berufung)

from the conviction and sentence of .. May, 1967. The date for the appeal

hearing was fixed for .. February, 1968, but the applicant has given no

information on the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

V. As a result of the applicant's refusal to pay alimony for the illegitimate

child, the competent administrative authority of the City of Bonn,

(Oberstadtdirektor - Ordnungsamt) refused several times since .. April, 1961,

to prolong the applicant's international travel document or to issue a new

one, on the ground that he might try to shirk his obligation to pay

maintenance. Against the last of these decisions dated .. February, 1965, the

applicant appealed to the Administrative Court at Cologne but apparently

without success.

On .. May, 1967, the applicant's lawyer made a new request to the

above-mentioned authority to have an international travel document issued to

the applicant for a journey abroad. On .. May, 1967, the authority, under

Article 19, paragraph (2) No. 4, of the Aliens Act of 1965, formally

prohibited the applicant from going abroad on the ground that there was an

immediate danger that he would shirk his liability to pay maintenance. At the

same time the applicant was requested under Article 3 of the Aliens Act to

apply for an international travel document as an identity paper for his stay

in the Federal Republic. The applicant was informed of his right to object

(Widerspruch einlegen) to this order within a month from receipt. Whether he

has subsequently seized the competent Administrative Court is not clear. The

applicant has only submitted a carbon copy of a letter of .. July, 1967, in

which he protests against the decision of .. May, 1967.

The applicant submits that this decision is contrary to the Geneva Convention

on the Status of Refugees and of the German Statute of 25th April, 1951, on

the Status of Displaced Persons (über die Rechtsstellung Heimatloser

Ausländer) and complains that by reason of the prohibition to go abroad he has

been unable to carry out a number of important professional missions and has

suffered considerable financial losses and claims damages. The applicant

considers that he has been "interned" since 1961.

He alleges that in 1963/1964 and again at present the authorities are

preparing his expulsion or extradition to the Soviet Union where he would be

subjected to torture and severe punishment for his anti-communist activities.

In this respect he submits a copy of a letter of November, 1963, from the

lawyer of the "Association for the Protection of Children and Mothers" to the

Ministry of Interior of North-Rhine-Westphalia in which the lawyer complains

of the applicant's continuous interferences with the education of his niece

and nephew and suggests to "bring him to his senses" by a threat of

extradition. On .. October, 1963, also the competent administrative authority

of the City of Munich requested the analogous authority in Bonn, to take

against the applicant measures under the Aliens Ordinance

(Ausländerpolizeiverordnung). The authority in Bonn, however, informed the

applicant on .. May, 1967, that they had not intended his expulsion in 1963

and 1964. The applicant has submitted no details and evidence with regard to

his allegation that his expulsion is at present being prepared.

On .. and .. July, 1968, the applicant telephoned and added to his submissions

that it was becoming more and more apparent that the Ministry of Interior took

an extremely hostile attitude towards him and that compatriots of his living

in Munich had been questioned by the authorities as to whether he should be

expelled to the Soviet Union. On .. July, 1968, the applicant submitted his

travel document issued by the German authorities with reference to the Geneva

Convention of .. July, 1951, on the status of refugees. This passport is valid

up to 10 July, 1969, but bears the mention "prohibition to leave the country

(Ausreiseverbot)".

The applicant has also referred to the situation of political refugees in the

Federal Republic in general. He has stated in particular that Soviet agents

are allowed to murder or kidnap such refugees without any action being taken

by the Federal Republic.

VI. With regard to the above-mentioned proceedings before the District Court

of Bonn and the Administrative Court of Cologne and some further proceedings

before the Labour Court of Bonn, the applicant had to pay several amounts of

court and lawyers' fees.

By a decision (Kostenfeststellungsbeschluss) of .. August, notified on ..

August, 1967, the Registrar (Urkundenbeamter der Geschäftsstelle) of the

District Court of Bonn ordered the applicant to pay certain fees to Mr. W. who

had been one of his lawyers in the paternity suit. The applicant raised an

objection (Erinnerung) on .. and .. September, 1967, but on .. September,

1967, the District Court rejected this objection as being raised out of time.

Another lawyer who had acted for him in the paternity suit, Mrs. V., obtained

on .. August, 1967, a judgment of the District Court for her fees and on ..

September, 1967, a further decision of the registry for the costs involved in

the action for payment of fees. On .. September,  1967, in a letter addressed

both to Mrs. V and Mr. W. the applicant protested against his obligation to

pay the lawyers's fees since he considered that both lawyers had not

represented him adequately and requested that the lawyers should repay the

fees already received.

For the execution of the various decisions to pay court and lawyers' fees a

number of orders attaching the applicant's salary at the Press Club, were

issued on .. August, .. September, .. and .. October, 1967. From the documents

submitted by the applicant it appears that he raised before the District Court

of Bonn objections (Erinnerung) against two of these orders issued on ..

August and .. September, 1967. These objections were rejected on .. October,

1967, upon his appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) by the Regional Court. The Courts

stated that contrary to the applicant's assumptions, only the part of the

salary exceeding a certain minimum fixed by law (pfändbarer Teil) would be

affected by the distraint orders. As to the further submissions by which the

orders had been made, the Court pointed out that such submissions could not be

made in an objection concerning only the execution measure itself.

The applicant complains generally that by the various execution measures he no

longer has sufficient means for his living.

Whereas the applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows:

He alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, paragraph (1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14

and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of numerous provisions of

the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and of various German legal

provisions.

The applicant requests that the civil and criminal decisions concerning the

obligation to pay alimony for Gabriel E. and the prohibition to travel abroad

should be set aside and that he should be granted damages. He demands an

investigation of his charges against the judicial authorities in connection

with the deportation of his brother and the proceedings concerning the custody

of his niece and nephew and reintegration of the two children in the religious

and ethnical group of their father. He also requests the Commission to

investigate the alleged plans of the authorities to deport him to the Soviet

Union.

THE LAW

I. As to the complaints concerning the question of the guardianship and

religious education of the applicant's niece and nephew;

Whereas the applicant reintroduces certain complaints concerning the

guardianship over his nephew and niece and their religious education which

were already raised in his previous Application No. 1003/61;

Whereas, however, their complaints were not determined by the Commission which

struck this application off its list of cases as the applicant, having moved,

failed to keep the Commission informed of his change of address;

Whereas, as in his previous application, the applicant first complains

generally that, although being the uncle of the two children and having been

specifically entrusted with their education by their father, Abad X., he was

not awarded guardianship over them; whereas the Commission has examined this

complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees everyone

the right to respect for the family life; whereas, in order that this

provision should be applicable, it must be shown that such a link existed

between the applicant and the two children as can be considered to establish

family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas the Commission

finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, the relationship between

the uncle and nephew and niece cannot be said to amount to such a link;

whereas in this respect it is particularly observed that the applicant and his

brother's children are not, and have not been, living together in the same

household;

Whereas in these circumstances the decision concerning the guardianship of the

children did not affect the applicant's family life within the meaning of

Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas consequently there is no appearance of a violation

of Article 8 (Art. 8);

Whereas, secondly, the applicant complains specifically that his niece and

nephew are estranged from their own Moslem religion by being brought up in a

Catholic institution and alleges in this respect a violation of Article 9

(Art. 9) ,which protects the right of freedom of religion;

Whereas in this respect the question might arise whether the applicant,

although not a direct victim of the alleged violation of the right of his

niece and nephew to religious freedom, can nevertheless be considered in the

circumstances of the case as having such moral interest in their religious

education and as being so affected, albeit indirectly, by the alleged

violation as to be considered a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art.

25); whereas, however, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine

this question since in any event there is no appearance of a violation of the

children's right to religious freedom; whereas the Commission observes in this

respect that, under the German law concerning the religious education of

children, any child from the age of 14 has the right to determine freely his

religion; whereas the applicant's niece and nephew are at present 21 and 20

years old and whereas there is nothing to suggest that they are prevented from

freely exercising this right; whereas consequently there can no longer

possibly exist any violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention;

Whereas it follows that the applicant's complaints concerning his niece and

nephew are manifestly ill-founded both as regards the question of guardianship

and of the religious education; whereas therefore these complaints must be

rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention;

II. As to the complaints concerning the expulsion of the applicant's brother

Abad X.

Whereas the applicant further alleges that in 1962 his brother Abad X. was

deported to the Soviet Union against his will and in spite of the fact that

having fought in the German army during the war, he had the status of a

refugee; whereas the applicant complains that the criminal charges, which he

laid in 1966 and 1967 against judges and other persons responsible for the

alleged political deportation of his brother, were not proceeded with; whereas

in this respect it is 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 the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges or

other persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed

by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its

previous decisions, No. 2646 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 19, page 89) and

No. 2942 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 23, page 51); 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;

III. As to the complaints concerning the civil proceedings and decisions under

which the applicant has to pay alimony for the illegitimate child;

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings and the decisions in the District Court

and Regional Court of Bonn, 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 or 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 No. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium - Yearbook III, p. 233) and No. 1140/61

(X. v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is

no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of; 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;

IV. As to the complaints concerning the criminal proceedings against the

applicant;

Whereas the applicant also complains of the criminal proceedings conducted

against him in Munich and of his conviction on .. May, 1967, by the District

Court;

Whereas in this respect it is first 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; whereas the applicant has failed to

supply any information as to the result of the appeal which he lodged with the

Regional Court and whereas thus it is not clear whether these appeal

proceedings are still pending; whereas there would also exist the possibility

of a further appeal (Revision) to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht);

whereas, therefore, the applicant has not shown that he has exhausted the

remedies available to him under German law;

Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, 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 an examination of the complaints concerning the criminal

proceedings as they have been submitted, does not disclose an appearance of a

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

particular in the Articles invoked by the applicant; 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;

V. As to the complaints concerning the applicant's travel document and the

alleged threat of his deportation;

Whereas the applicant complains on the one hand that, since 1961, he was

refused a travel document and, on .. May, 1967, was expressly forbidden to

leave the Federal Republic; whereas on the other hand he alleges that the

German authorities are preparing his expulsion to the Soviet Union;

Whereas with regard to these complaints it is first recalled that the

Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guaranteed only the rights

and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention and that, 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 certain further rights and freedoms have been added by

the provisions of the First Protocol to the Convention (P1), which, under

Article 5 of the First Protocol (P1-5), shall be regarded as additional

Articles to the Convention; whereas the examination of any complaint not

relating to one of the rights and freedoms thus guaranteed is outside the

competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas both the rights claimed

by the applicant are not as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas with regard

to the right to leave a country and to be granted the necessary papers for

this purpose the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the

admissibility of Applications No. 1976/61, T. against the Federal Republic of

Germany, and 1925/63, F. against Belgium; whereas, as regards the right not to

be expelled from a particular country, the Commission refers to its decisions

on the admissibility of Applications No. 1802/62, Yearbook of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Vol. VI, pages 462 (478) and No. 3040/67,

Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133 (136); whereas it follows that

this aspect 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 the Commission has also had regard ex officio to the Fourth Protocol

(P4) to the Convention which entered into force for the Federal Republic on

1st June, 1968, and which, in Article 2, paragraph (2) (P4-2-2), protects the

freedom to leave any country and in Article 4 (P4-4) forbids collective

expulsion of aliens; whereas, however, Article 6, paragraph 2 of this Protocol

(P4-6-2) provides that "the right of individual recourse recognised by a

declaration made under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention ... shall not be

effective in relation to this Protocol unless the High Contracting Party

concerned has made a statement recognising such right ... in respect of all or

any of Articles 1 to 4 of the Protocol (P1-1, P1-2, P1-3, P1-4)"; whereas it

follows that for the time being the Commission has no competence to examine

any individual application directed against the Federal Republic of Germany in

the light of the provisions of the Fourth Protocol (P4);

Whereas the Commission has finally had regard to the applicant's allegation

that the German authorities prepared his expulsion to the Soviet Union and

that in view of his past and present political activities he would risk severe

punishment and inhuman treatment in that country;

Whereas it is true that, according to the Commission's constant jurisprudence,

the deportation or extradition of a foreigner to a particular country may in

exceptional circumstances give rise to the question whether there would be

"inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

; whereas in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions on the

admissibility of Applications No. 984/61, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 6,

pages 256 (260) and No. 3040/67, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133

(138); whereas, however, the applicant has failed to submit an element of

proof to support his allegation that the German authorities have decided upon,

or are at least preparing, his expulsion to the Soviet Union; whereas the

Commission observes in this connection that according to the documents

submitted by the applicant he appears to be recognised as a political refugee

under the Geneva Convention of 28th July, 1951, which is also in force in the

Federal Republic of Germany, and whereas, consequently, any expulsion to the

Soviet Union would be excluded under German law; whereas consequently the

Commission finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the

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

VI. As to the complaints concerning the distraint orders made against the

applicant for the enforcement of his obligation to pay court and lawyer's

fees;

Whereas, with regard to the distraint orders made against him, the applicant

only complains generally that by the various execution measures he no longer

has sufficient means for his living; whereas, in this respect again, it is

recalled that the Commission is only competent ratione materiae to examine the

alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the

Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas the question to what extent a

person's livelihood may be affected by any of the provisions of the Convention

or the First Protocol (P1);

Whereas in this context the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the

admissibility of Applications No. 159/56 (Yearbook Vol. I, documents and

decisions 1955-57, page 202) and No. 2498/65 (M. against Austria, unpublished

decision of 6th February, 1967) where it was stated that no right to an

adequate standard of living is as such included among the guaranteed rights

and freedoms; whereas it follows that the applicant's above-mentioned

complaint is also incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within

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

Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.