THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1915 and at present

residing in Munich.

A. Complaints concerning claims for pension and compensation

I.1. The Applicant states that 12 1/2 years ago she lodged an

application with the Equalisation Board (Ausgleichsamt) at Bad

Kreuznach to obtain compensation according to the Liability

Equalisation Act (Lastenausgleichgesetz) for the loss of certain real

property at Goldap (East Prussia) as a result of the war. The Board did

not act upon the application for 10 years and then referred the case

to the Equalisation Board at Emden. Since this Board did not give a

decision either, the Applicant, in October, 1964, lodged a

constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) complaining of the

Board's failure to act. She states that the Federal Constitutional

Court also failed to give a decision.

She alleges that, in view of the fact that she had a right to such

compensation and that for now altogether 12 1/2 years, the authorities

had failed to act on her application having in their possession

numerous documents in support of her claim, Article 1 of the Protocol

to the Convention was violated.

2. By letter of 15th March, 1967, the Applicant submitted additional

information:

(a) She states that, on .. March, 1964, the Equalisation Board at Emden

had given two decisions by which it fixed the amount of compensation

to be awarded to her for the property lost at Goldap. These decisions

were transmitted to the Applicant on .. March, 1967 by the Equalisation

Board. In a letter accompanying the decisions, the Board informed the

Applicant that her place of residence had been unknown at the time when

the decision was taken and that consequently they had been served on

her by substituted service in accordance with Article 15 of the Act

relating to Service of Process in Administrative Matters

(Verwaltungszustellungsgesetz). The decisions had become final on ..

April, 1964.

(b) The Applicant complains:

(i) that the amount fixed by the Board was inadequate;

(ii) that the substituted service had been unlawful because both she

and her daughter had been in constant contact with various authorities

and courts at Emden, in particular with the Post Office, the Mayor and

the Labour Court at Emden, and that, consequently, her place of

residence could not have been unknown to the authorities.

II. The Applicant further states that she had also inherited real

property at Treuburg (East Prussia), she and her daughter being

co-heirs. Having lodged a claim to obtain compensation for the loss of

this property, the Equalisation Board at Lübeck, on .. May, 1963,

assessed an estimated value of DM 7,854.-- thereto. The Applicant,

believing that the estimate was not made in accordance with the

provision of the Liability Equalisation Act concerning official

valuation and alleging a false description of the property in question

by the Board, on .. August, 1963, lodged a complaint (Klage) with the

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) at Schleswig to obtain a

higher valuation and thus higher compensation. The Court having failed

to give a decision by October, 1964, the Applicant lodged a

constitutional appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court. She states

that the Federal Constitutional Court took no action on the appeal.

It appears that, on .. September, 1965, the Administrative Court at

Schleswig rejected the complaint holding that the findings of the

Equalisation Board concerning the size of the property corresponded to

the evidence given by the Home Information Office

(Heimatsauskunftstelle) and another co-heir of the estate. The Court

further decided that an appeal (Revision) from its decision should not

lie. The Applicant lodged appeals (Revisionszulassungsbeschwerde und

Revision) with the Federal Administrative Court

(Bundesverwaltungsgericht) which were dismissed on .. June, 1966 on the

ground that the appeals had not been lodged by a lawyer as required by

the Act concerning the Procedure in the Administrative Courts

(Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung). The wording of the decision was corrected

by the Court on .. July, 1966, the Applicant having complained of a

wrong description of her hereditary position.

On .. July, 1966 the Applicant again applied to the Federal

Administrative Court to obtain reinstatement in her prior position

(Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand). This application was rejected

on .. September, 1966.

The Applicant complains that the valuation of her property as proposed

by the authorities is unlawful. She further complains that the

proceedings

before the Courts were unlawful. She alleges, in particular, that she

had applied to the Administrative Court in Bremen to obtain free legal

aid, but had been prevented from submitting the official certificates

of her poverty (Armutszeugnisse) in support of her application as these

had to be issued by the administrative authorities of Emden, a city

which she was forced to leave on account of alleged illegal acts

committed against her. She alleges a violation of Article 1 of the

Protocol to the Convention.

III. 1. The Applicant further states that she was entitled to a widow's

pension of DM 310.-- per month but that, owing to her departure from

Emden and the subsequent travels in Germany and abroad, she had not

received any payments in months. She claims that the arrears amount to

DM 2,672.80.

It appears that on .. October, 1964 she lodged a complaint (Klage) with

the Social Court (Sozialgericht) at Aurich to obtain payments on her

widow's pension. The Court rejected her claim on .. May, 1966. The

Applicant states that, on .. June, 1966, she appealed from this

decision to the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) at Celle

but does not indicate what decision was given by this Court.

She complains that her pension is unlawfully withheld and that the

Social Courts wrongfully dealt with her complaint. She states that

because of these irregularities she has lodged an appeal (Beschwerde)

with the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) which, on ..

October, 1964, was referred to the Minister for Social Matters of Lower

Saxony at Hanover who, in turn, referred the appeal to the Regional

Relief Board (Landesversorgungsamt) on .. November, 1964. It appears

that the Board informed her by letter of .. November, 1964 that her

case was not yet up for decision. She further states that, on ..

December, 1965, she complained (Beschwerde) to the Social Court at

Aurich of the Court's alleged manipulations in dealing with her suit.

It appears that the complaint was referred to the President of the

Social Court of Appeal at Celle who interpreted it to be a request to

institute disciplinary proceedings (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) against

the judges of the Social Court. By letter of .. February, 1966 from the

Office of the President of the Social Court of Appeal the Applicant was

so informed. Her objection (Widerspruch) to such interpretation, her

further appeal (weitere Beschwerde) to the Social Court of Appeal, and

her request for a decision regarding her appeal apparently remained

without reply from the Court.

2. By letter of 1st March, 1967, the Applicant submitted the following

additional information:

(a) She states that, on .. February, 1967, she obtained two decisions

taken by the Social Court of Appeal at Celle upon the appeal of ..

June, 1966 against the Social Court's decision of .. May, 1966. By

these two decisions, the rejection of her claim against the Relief

Office (Versorgungsamt) at Oldenburg and the Office in Charge of

Pensions at the Post Office (Rentenstelle des Postamtes) at Emden for

the payment of her pension has been confirmed and her appeal dismissed

as being ill-founded and inadmissible, respectively.

(b) Also, on .. February, 1967, she allegedly received a letter from

the Federal Social Insurance Office for Employees

(Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte) in Berlin informing her

that the arrears of the pension due to her, consisting of a total

amount of DM 3,542.40, for the period from 1st January, 1966 to 31st

January, 1967, had been paid as follows:

DM 2,225.60 to the City of Munich for expenses incurred by the City on

the Applicant's behalf, and

DM 1,316.80 into her account at Ludwigshafen.

3. The Applicant complains:

(a) that the Social Court of Appeal wrongly dismissed her appeal and

had, without informing her, unlawfully divided up her one complaint

into two complaints;

(b) that the Federal Insurance Office for Employees had unlawfully

transferred a part of the pension due to her to the City of Munich.

(She alleges that she had unsuccessfully lodged protests against this

transfer with the City of Munich and the Federal Insurance Office);

(c) that, as a result of her pension having been unlawfully withheld

from her, she was unable to pay storage fees for her luggage stored at

the railway station in Munich. She demands that the authorities also

pay these fees so that she can recover her luggage.

The Applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol to the

Convention.

B. Complaints concerning living conditions

I.1. The Applicant states that she was forced to leave her home owing

to irregularities committed by the City Administration of Emden.

Together with her daughter she travelled in Germany and abroad and made

short stays in Strasbourg, Kehl, Karlsruhe, Vienna, Berne, and finally

Munich where they remained until the present time. It appears that she

had no regular place of residence there but stayed in various homes

supported by the Churches, by the City of Munich, or spent the night

in the open. The Applicant states that in the cities of Kehl, Karlsruhe

and Munich she lodged applications with the authorities to be provided

with a lodging. Upon the refusal by the authorities to make such

provision the Applicant lodged numerous complaints and appeals with the

Administrative Courts at Karlsruhe and Munich respectively. All these

were rejected. Constitutional appeals (Verfassungsbeschwerden) lodged

by the Applicant were declared to be inadmissible by a group of three

judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)

in respect of her complaint against the City of Kehl on .. September,

1964, in respect of her complaint against the City of Karlsruhe on ..

October, 1964, and declared inadmissible by the Bavarian Constitutional

Court (Bayerischer Verfassungsgerichtshof) in respect of her complaints

against the City of Munich on .. September, 1965, and again on .. May,

1966.

2. The Applicant states that upon her arrival in Munich she and her

daughter found a preliminary lodging in the Home for Evangelical

Students (Evangelisches Schülerinnenheim) but had to leave this home

on .. July, 1965. On .. November, 1965 they were assigned two beds in

the Municipal Home for Women and Mothers (Städtisches Frauen- und

Mütterheim).

It appears that on .. June, 1966 she requested the District Court

(Amtsgericht) in Munich to lay charges against the persons in charge

of the Home of having disturbed the domestic peace (Hausfriedensbruch).

The Court did not take any action upon this request. Instead, the

administrative authorities of the Home in turn applied to the District

Court in Munich to have the Applicant expelled from the Home. On ..

September, 1966 she and her daughter were taken away by a bailiff and

the police and transferred to a casual ward.

The Applicant complains that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading

treatment in that she was unlawfully denied a proper dwelling. She

alleges that repeatedly she was insulted and even beaten by the persons

in charge of the municipal homes and wards and by people in the street.

She alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. The Applicant further states that her Identity Card

(Personalausweis) expired on .. September, 1964. On .. November, 1964

she received a new Identity Card which allegedly contained wrong

entries. In the meanwhile, on .. October, 1964 she had instituted

proceedings before the Administrative Court at Aurich to obtain a

proper Identity Card. Her complaint was rejected on .. January, 1965.

She states that she lodged an appeal (Berufung) with the Administrative

Court of Appeal at Lüneburg where the case is still pending.

The Applicant complains that owing to the denial of a proper Identity

Card she is frequently inconvenienced and subjected to limitations on

her free movements. Without giving any further particulars, she also

complains of irregularities committed by the Administrative Court at

Aurich in dealing with her case. She states, that because of these

irregularities she appealed (Beschwerde) to the Administrative Court

of Appeal at Lüneburg on .. October, 1964 and again on .. November,

1964, but that she received no decision from the Court. She alleges a

violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

C. Complaints concerning criminal proceedings

I.1. It appears from her statements and from copies of documents

submitted by her that, on .. November, 1965, she was arrested in Munich

on suspicion of making libellous statements and causing a disturbance

of the peace, and was committed to detention on remand. Her complaint

against the lawfulness of the arrest (Haftbeschwerde) was rejected by

the Regional Court (Landgericht I) in Munich on .. November, 1965.

On .. November, 1965 the District Court (Amtsgericht) in Munich issued

an order (Strafbefehl) inflicting a sentence of 10 days' imprisonment

(Gefängnis) and 2 days' arrest (Haft) upon the Applicant. She was

released from detention on .. November, 1964. Upon her protest against

the order inflicting the sentence (Einspruch gegen den Strafbefehl) the

District Court in Munich, on .. January, 1966, upheld the order, the

Applicant not having appeared at the trial. Contending that the

proceedings were unlawful and that therefore she did not have to appear

at any hearing but could rightfully claim dismissal of her case, the

Applicant addressed herself to the Regional Court in Munich. The Court

interpreted her recourse to be an appeal (Berufung) from the District

Court's decision, and confirmed the conviction on .. May, 1966.

The Applicant complains:

- that she was wrongly detained on remand;

- that she was wrongly convicted;

- that the proceedings instituted against her were unlawful, in

particular, that there should not have been a decision on appeal

because she did not lodge an appeal.

She alleges a violation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention.

II. The Applicant states that on .. November, 1965 the administrative

authorities in Munich requested her and her daughter to sign statements

by which they agreed to be committed to an asylum for the homeless

(Unterkommensauftrag) in view of the fact that they had been spending

the days in a public park and had also slept there. Since they

repeatedly refused to sign this agreement, the authorities finally, on

.. November, 1965, issued an order to commit them to a casual ward.

In the meanwhile, the Applicant had been arrested on .. November, 1965.

She states that in the course of being interrogated by the police at

their headquarters one of the officers pushed her so hard that she

fell. She requested the District Court at Munich to lay charges of

committing assault in office (tätliche Beleidigung im Amt). Having had

no response from the Court for several months, the Applicant, on ..

February, 1966, complained (Beschwerde) to the Public Prosecutor at the

Regional Court I (Staatsanwalt bei dem Landgericht I) in Munich of his

failure to open proceedings against the officer. On .. February, 1966

the Public Prosecutor informed her that he refused to prosecute.

The Applicant appealed (Beschwerde) from this decision to the Senior

Public Prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) at the Regional Court in Munich.

The appeal was referred to the Attorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt)

at the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) in Munich who dismissed it

on .. May, 1966. The Applicant then applied for free legal aid

(Armenrechtsgesuch) to the Court of Appeal in Munich in order to lodge

a further appeal upon the Attorney-General's refusal to prosecute on

the charges laid by her (Klageerzwingungsverfahren). The Court rejected

her application by decision of .. June, 1966.

The Applicant complains that the refusal to prosecute is unlawful. She

also alleges that the Attorney-General should not have decided, her

appeal having been lodged with the Senior Public Prosecutor. Without

referring to any Articles, she alleges generally a violation of the

Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas certain of the facts alleged relate to a period prior to 3rd

September, 1953, the date of the entry into force of the Convention

with respect to the Federal Republic of Germany and whereas, in

accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law,

the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts

subsequent to its entry into force with respect to that Party; whereas

it follows that the examination of the Application, in so far as it

relates to these alleged facts, is outside the competence of the

Commission ratione temporis;

Whereas, concerning the Applicant's complaints as to the rejection of

her claim for compensation and as to the conduct of the proceedings

connected therewith in respect of property lost as a result of the war,

it is to be observed that, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), the

Convention guarantees 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 otherwise an examination of the Application is

outside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas in

a series of previous cases (for instance, Applications Nos. 1164/61 -

S v. the Federal Republic of Germany and 1532/62 - H v. the

Netherlands) the Commission has consistently held that the right to

obtain compensation for an injury which does not itself constitute a

violation of the Convention, for example as in the present case,

ratione temporis, is not a right guaranteed by any of the provisions

of the Convention; and whereas, as regards her complaints concerning

the proceedings, it is pointed out that proceedings before an

administrative authority, such as the Equalisation Board, fall outside

the scope of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention;

Whereas, therefore, 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;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's further complaints that the

Equalisation Board failed to take any further action upon her claim for

compensation for her property lost at Goldap, 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 commence an action before the

Administrative Court on the ground of the alleged inactivity of the

Board, in accordance with Article 42 of the Act concerning the

Procedure in the Administrative Courts (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung);

Whereas, therefore, she has not exhausted the remedies available to her

under German law;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints relating to the

conduct of the Court proceedings concerning her compensation claim for

property lost at Treuburg, the Applicant failed to lodge an appeal to

the Federal Administrative Court through a lawyer; whereas, therefore,

she has equally not exhausted the remedies available to her under

German law;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints relating to her

pension claim and the Court proceedings concerned, the Applicant failed

to show that she appealed to the Federal Social Court on these grounds;

Whereas, therefore, she has again not exhausted the remedies available

to her 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 in any of these

cases the domestic remedies at her 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, in regard to her above complaints concerning

which she has failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her,

an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any 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 also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

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

Whereas the Applicant also in particular complains that she was refused

free legal aid in order to pursue her said compensation claim before

the Administrative Courts for property allegedly lost at Treuburg;

Whereas, in examining this complaint, the Commission has had regard

both to Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), and to Article 6,

paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 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 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), sub-paragraph (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the

Convention, everyone charged with a criminal offense has the right,

subject to certain conditions, to be granted free legal assistance;

whereas, however, as the Commission has frequently stated, 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, 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 clause 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;  and whereas an

examination of the case as it has been submitted does not show that the

refusal to grant the Applicant free legal aid constituted in any way

a violation of this right; whereas it follows that the Application, in

so far as it relates to Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

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

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that the authorities

in various German cities have refused her adequate accommodation, 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 no right to such

accommodation is as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission

refers to its previous decisions (Nos. 159/56 X v. the Federal Republic

of Germany - Yearbook I, page 202;  1340/62 Y v the Federal Republic

of Germany);

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;

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

proceedings conducted by such authorities in regard to the question of

her accommodation, an examination of the case as it has been submitted

does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 6,

paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1); 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, in regard to her complaint as to her living conditions in

general for which she apparently considers the Government of the

Federal Republic of Germany to be responsible, the Applicant also

alleges a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention; whereas,

however, an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 3 (Art. 3);

whereas again it follows that this part of the Application is also

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Whereas it appears that certain of the

Applicant's complaints are directed against the persons in charge and

residing at the private institutions where she stayed and against

unidentified persons in the street; whereas it results from Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the Commission is to

ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken in the Convention

by the High Contracting Parties, being those members of the Council of

Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited their instruments

of ratification;

Whereas, moreover, it appears from Article 25, paragraph (1)

(Art. 25-1), of the Convention that the Commission can properly admit

an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be

the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention,

provided that the Party in question has accepted this competence of the

Commission; whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the

Commission has no competence ratione personae to admit applications

directed against private institutions or individuals; whereas, in this

respect, the Commission refers to its previous decisions, No. 172/56

(S v. Sweden - Yearbook I, page 211) and No. 852/60 (S v. the Federal

Republic of Germany, ibid. IV, page 346); whereas an examination of the

case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex

officio, does not disclose any grounds on which the alleged conduct of

the above private institutions or individuals could exceptionally

entail the responsibility of the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany under the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of the

Application is incompatible within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph

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

Whereas, in regard to any other complaints which she appears to raise

regarding her living conditions, and also to the complaint concerning

her committal to a casual ward, an examination of the case as it has

been submitted does not disclose any 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;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that she was refused

a proper identity card by the authorities at Emden, the Commission has

already stated 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 no right to an identity card is

as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention; 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;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that the Public

Prosecutor in Munich refused to act on the charges laid by her and

prosecute the persons in charge of the Municipal Home for Women and

Mothers as well as an officer of the police in Munich, it is similarly

to be observed that no right to have criminal proceedings instituted

against such persons is as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission

refers to its previous decision, No. 2218/64 (X v. the Federal Republic

of Germany); 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;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints relating to the

criminal proceedings instituted against her, including her conviction

and sentence, the Commission has already pointed out that, 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; and whereas the

Applicant failed to avail herself of the remedies at her disposal under

German law;

Whereas, therefore, she has not exhausted the remedies available to her

under German law and no special circumstances are disclosed which might

have absolved her from exhausting such remedies;  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, in regard to the same complaint an examination

of the case as it has been submitted, 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

also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph

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

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.