THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1929 and at present detained

in prison at Saarbrücken. He complains that he was prevented from

voting in the Land elections of the Saar in June 1965 and in the

elections for the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) in September

1965.The Applicant states that, while in prison, he requested his voting

papers from the local authorities of Dillingen (Saar) but, on ..

September 1965, these papers were refused by the mayor of Dillingen on

the ground that the police authorities had ex officio registered the

Applicant's departure ("von Amts wegen abgemeldet").

The Applicant then wrote to the Parliament (Landtag) of the Saarland.

This petition was forwarded to the Presiding Electoral Officer

(Landeswahlleiter) who replied on .. September 1965 that the

authorities of Dillingen were competent in the Applicant's case.

From the documents submitted, it further appears that, on .. October,

the Applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court

(Bundesverwaltungsgericht) but, by a letter of .. October 1965, he was

informed that this Court was only competent for appeals (Rechtsmittel)

from decisions of lower administrative courts.

The Applicant also addressed himself without success to the Federal

Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für

Verfassungsschutz).

He now complains:

1. that he was wrongly prevented from exercising his right to vote in

   the above elections, and

2. that, in the determination of this right, he was not granted a

   hearing.

He alleges violations of Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention and

Article 3 of the Protocol.

THE LAW

Whereas the Applicant complains, in the first place, that he was

wrongly prevented from exercising his right to vote;  and whereas,

according to the terms of Article 3 of the Protocol (P1-3) to the

Convention, "the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free

elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions

which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in

the choice of the legislature";  whereas this undertaking of the

Contracting Parties to hold free elections implies the recognition of

universal suffrage;  whereas, consequently, the complaint by an

individual under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention that he was

prevented from voting gives rise to an examination by the Commission

of the implementation of this obligation;  whereas, however, it does

not follow that Article 3 (P1-3) accords the right unreservedly to

every single individual to take part in elections;  whereas, indeed,

it is generally recognised that certain limited groups of individuals

may be disqualified from voting;  whereas, however, the Commission has

still the task of considering whether such disqualifications affect the

"free expression of the opinion of the people" within the meaning of

Article 3 (P1-3); whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to

its decisions on the admissibility of Application No 530/59, Yearbook

of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 3, pages 184 - 196

(190);  No 787/60, Collection of Decisions, Volume 7, pages 75 - 80

(79);  No 1028/61, Yearbook Volume 4, pages 324 - 340 (338);  and No

1065/61, ibidem pages 260.270 (268);

Whereas the present Application raises the question of restrictions

which in law or in fact are imposed upon the right to vote of a limited

group of individuals, namely convicted prisoners serving their

sentence; whereas the Commission finds that such restrictions do not

affect the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice

of the legislature" within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol

(P1-3); whereas, therefore, the fact that the Applicant, a convicted

prisoner, was prevented from voting in the Land elections of the Saar

and the federal elections in 1965 does not disclose, with regard to

these elections, any appearance of a violation by the Federal Republic

of Germany of its obligations under Article 3 (P1-3);

Whereas it follows that the Applicant's complaint under Article 3 of

the Protocol (P1-3) is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

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

Whereas the Applicant also complains that, in the determination of his

right to vote, he was not granted a hearing;  whereas in this respect

the Commission has had regard to Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1),

of the Convention which provides that, in the determination of his

civil rights, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing;  whereas the

question arises whether the right to vote is a "civil right" within the

meaning of this provision;  whereas the Commission does not feel called

upon to decide this question in the present case, considering that, in

any event, the Applicant failed to lodge a constitutional appeal

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) invoking Article 103, paragraph (1), of the

Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which states that, in the courts, "everyone is

entitled to a hearing in accordance with the law";  whereas, therefore,

he has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under

German law;  and whereas there is no appearance of any special

circumstances which might have absolved him from exhausting these

remedies;  whereas, consequently, 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 the remainder of his Application.

Now, therefore, the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.