THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is an Italian citizen, born in 1916 at Dortmund and

residing at Dortmund.

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

he was the recipient of a pension (Rente) granted by the Ruhr Miners'

Union (Ruhrknappschaft) on account of his incapacity to undertake any

form of gainful occupation (Erwerbsunfähigkeit) owing to a heart attack

which he had suffered in 1959.

By letter of ... 1959, from the Union he was informed that this pension

would be withdrawn as from ... 1961, and that henceforth he would only

receive a pension on account of his incapacity to exercise his

profession as a miner (Berufsunfähigkeit). The Union reached this

decision after medical examinations of the Applicant had shown that he

had sufficiently recovered from his heart attack to perform light work.

The Applicant, who is of the opinion that he is still incapable of

performing any work, lodged an objection (Widerspruch) against this

decision with the Ruhr Miners' Union of Bochum. This was rejected on

... 1961.

The Applicant then instituted legal proceedings before the Social Court

(Sozialgericht) at Dortmund to obtain a judicial decision regarding the

withdrawal of his pension. The court procured another medical opinion

on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that he was capable of

performing light work. On ... 1963, the Social Court rejected his

claim. The Applicant lodged an appeal (Berufung) against this decision

with the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht). This Court

requested further medical examinations of the Applicant's state of

health, one of which certified his incapacity to perform any kind of

work for fear of a relapse. Still, the Social Court of Appeal dismissed

the appeal on ... 1964, as being ill-founded, relying on two other

medical opinions which stated that the Applicant was well capable of

performing light work. In its decision the court considered the above

medical opinion which supported the Applicant's claim.

The Applicant then lodged a further appeal (Revision) with the Federal

Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) and, at the same time, applied to

the Court for free legal aid (Armenrechtsgesuch). By decision of ...

1965, the Federal Social Court rejected his application for free legal

aid. It dismissed the appeal on ... 1965.

In his letter of ... 1967, to the Commission the Applicant states that,

in the meanwhile, he has suffered a new heart attack. Consequently, on

... 1966, the Ruhr Miners' Union again granted a pension on account of

his incapacity to undertake any form of gainful occupation

(Erwerbsunfähigkeit) as from ... 1966.

The Applicant complains:

(1) that the pension on account of his incapacity to undertake any form

of gainful occupation was unlawfully withdrawn from him in the period

from ... 1961 to ... 1966;

(2) that the courts did not sufficiently take into account the medical

opinion certifying his incapacity to perform any kind of work;

(3) that the Federal Social Court refused his request for free legal

aid.

Without referring to any specific Articles he alleges generally a

violation of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint concerning the

reduction of his pension during the period from ... 1961 to ... 1966,

and the court proceedings concerned, 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 Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium -

Yearbook III, page 233) and 1140/61 (X v. Austria - Collection of

Decisions, Volume 8, page 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;

Whereas the Applicant complains that he was refused free legal aid in

order to pursue his case before the Federal Social Court; whereas, in

examining this complaint, the Commission has had regard both to Article

6, paragraph (1), and to Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c)

(Art. 6-1, 6-3-c), of the Convention;

Whereas in respect of Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (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 these

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), sub-paragraph (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 the Commission has frequently stated, no right to free

legal aid in civil cases is as such included among the rights and

freedoms guaranteed by the Convention;

Whereas it follows that the Application, in so far as it relates to

Article 6, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), is

incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning

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

Whereas the Commission has also had regard to the general provisions

of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention; whereas it

results from this provision that, in the determination of his civil

rights, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing;

Whereas, however, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that

the Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of six

months from the date on which the final decision was taken"; and

whereas the decision of the Federal Social Court, which was the final

decision of the Federal Social Court, which was the final decision

regarding his application for free legal aid was given on 1st March,

1965; whereas the present Application was not submitted to the

Commission until 29th October, 1965, that is more than six months after

the date of this decision;

Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or

suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this part

of the Application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27,

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

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.