THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant states that he is a German citizen of Lithuanian origin,

born in 1925 and living at Bielefeld. His complaints are as follows:

I. In a previous Application (No. 1709/62) the Applicant alleged that

he was wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution.

On 8th July, 1964, the Commission rejected that Application on the

grounds that it was, in part, inadmissible ratione temporis and that

the remainder was incompatible with the Convention within the meaning

of Article 27, paragraph (2).

In his present Application, the Applicant renews his allegation that

he is wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution. He

states that the final decision in his case was given by the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on .. December, 1963,

and submits that the Federal Compensation Act

(Bundesentschädigungsgesetz) and its application in his case constitute

continuing violations of Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and of

Article 2 of the Protocol.

II. In a letter of .. October, 1966, the Applicant also complains that,

in the Federal Republic of Germany, he and other persons of Lithuanian

stock are not given any opportunity to have their children educated in

the Lithuanian language.

THE LAW

Whereas the Commission, on 8th July, 1964, delivered a decision in

which it declared Application No. 1709/62 lodged by the Applicant to

be inadmissible;

Whereas, under Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the

Convention, the Commission may not deal with any application submitted

under Article 25 (Art. 25) if it is substantially the same as a matter

which has already been examined by the Commission and contains no

relevant new information; whereas, in his complaints mentioned in part

I of the above statement of facts, the Applicant repeats the complaints

made by him in Application No. 1709/62; and whereas he does not submit

any relevant new information in regard to these complaints;

Whereas this part of the present Application must accordingly be

rejected in pursuance of Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b);

Whereas the Applicant also complains that, in the Federal Republic of

Germany, he and other persons of Lithuanian stock are not given any

opportunity to have their children educated in the Lithuanian language;

whereas in this respect 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; 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, in the present case, the Commission does not feel called upon

to decide the question whether the right to education claimed by the

Applicant is included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention as, in any event, 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; whereas in this respect the Commission has

frequently stated that the remedy by means of a constitutional appeal

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht), for matters within the competence of that

Court, is a domestic remedy which in principle falls within the scope

of Article 26 (Art. 26) (see Application No. 1086/61, Yearbook of the

European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 5, pages 148 [154]);

whereas, under Article 90 of the Act on the Federal Constitutional

Court (Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht), everyone has the

right to lodge a constitutional appeal to the Federal Constitutional

Court alleging a violation by a public authority of one of the Basic

Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany; Whereas, in

respect of the Applicant's above complaint concerning the situation of

persons of Lithuanian stock in the Federal Republic of Germany, the

Commission has had regard to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

which provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth

in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground

such as race, language, national origin or association with a national

minority; whereas this provision corresponds to Article 3, paragraph

(3) of the Basic Law which states that no one may be prejudiced or

favoured because of his race, his language or his homeland and origin;

Whereas, however, the Applicant failed to lodge a constitutional appeal

based on this Article; whereas, therefore, he has 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 it follows that, insofar as the right to education claimed by

the Applicant may be guaranteed by the Convention, he has not complied

with 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.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.