THE FACTS

Whereas the facts as presented by the Applicant in his numerous and

partly illegible letters and as appearing from the documents submitted

by him may be generally summarised as follows:

The Applicant is a German citizen born in 1941 in Sekic, Jugoslavia.

He is at present detained in prison at Stein, Austria.

On .. October, 1963, he was arrested in Austria on several charges of

fraud. The trial was ordered to be held on .. February, 1964, before

the Regional Court (Kreisgericht) of Wiener-Neustadt.

By a letter dated .. January, 1964, the Court informed the Applicant

that a lawyer, Dr. B, had been appointed as his counsel for the trial.

But one day after receipt of this letter the Applicant was told that

a different lawyer, Dr. A, would act as his counsel. He states that he

had no time to get in touch with this lawyer except a minute before the

opening of the trial on .. February, 1964, and that the lawyer simply

relied on what he was about to hear in the course of the trial.

On the same day the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to five

years' severe imprisonment (schwerer Kerker) with one day sleeping hard

every 3 months.

He lodged an appeal (Berufung) and a plea of nullity

(Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) but the latter was subsequently withdrawn by

his trial lawyer, Dr. A, allegedly without the Applicant's consent and

knowledge. By a summons dated .. June, 1964, and handed to him on ..

June, 1964, the Applicant was informed that his appeal would be heard

by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) of Vienna on .. July, 1964.

By a further letter also dated .. June, 1964, and handed to the

Applicant on .. June, 1964 (Friday) he was informed that he would be

defended before the Court of Appeal by Dr. K. He states that he wrote

immediately to this lawyer demanding that the letter be sent by

registered mail but when the Applicant appeared before the Court on ..

July, 1964, his lawyer, Dr. H, who was acting for Dr. K, had not yet

received the letter. The appeal was rejected on that same day.

The Applicant petitioned for a plea of nullity for the safeguard of the

law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes) but the Public

Prosecutor refused on .. October, 1964, to institute such proceedings.

He also lodged  several petitions for pardon, but without success.

After his conviction had become final, the City Council (Magistrate)

of Krems, which was his last residence in Austria, banished him from

Austrian territory by an order of .. October, 1964, which according to

its terms took immediate effect. Basing himself on this order the

Applicant asked for his immediate expulsion from Austria which would

involve his release from prison but, by a letter of .. February, 1965,

the City Council of Krems told him that the order could not be executed

as long as he was serving his sentence.

After the hearing of his appeal in Vienna on .. July, 1964, the

Applicant jumped off the train on his way back to the prison at

Wiener-Neustadt allegedly with the intention of committing suicide

after his conviction. A disciplinary punishment (Hausstrafe) of 10 days

solitary confinement ("Keller") and of 4 days fasting and sleeping hard

was imposed by the prison authority of Wiener-Neustadt which found that

he had tried to escape. The punishment was executed at Stein where the

Applicant had been taken in the meanwhile. On .. December, 1964, the

Applicant complained of this fact in a letter to the Minister of

Justice, but apparently without success. He also required compensation

for the injuries he had suffered when he jumped off the train.

With respect to the letter to his lawyer, Dr. K, which had not arrived,

the Applicant inquired at the prison authority of Wiener-Neustadt and

he was told by a letter of .. November, 1964, that no proof of its

expedition existed but that the letter, written according to the prison

authority on .. or .. June, had been forwarded to the investigating

judge on .. June, 1964, and posted subsequently by simple mail.

As to the Applicant's question what had become of the two stamps of 3

Austrian schillings which he had added for the expedition by registered

mail he was told that one stamp of 3 schillings (postage for abroad)

had been used. When the Applicant insisted further, comparing these

facts to his own offence of fraud, another disciplinary punishment of

7 days without breakfast was imposed by the prison authority of

Wiener-Neustadt.

He appealed against this decision to the Prosecution Officer of Krems

supervising the prison of Stein (Staatsanwaltschaft, Hauskommissär) who

rejected his appeal on .. November, 1964, on the ground that he could

not examine the decisions taken at Wiener-Neustadt.

In his letter of .. December, 1964, to the Minister of Justice, the

Applicant also complained of these facts, however, without success.

The Applicant complains of a second indecent, this time in the Stein

prison, in which he allegedly was charged 5.50 Austrian Schillings too

much for postage stamps. He had obtained permission to send a letter

and a pawn ticket (Pfandschein) but contrary to his intentions they

were posted by separate letters and he had to pay two times the postage

of 5.50 Austrian Schillings.

On .. May, 1966, he lodged with the Court of Appeal in Vienna a request

for the institution of criminal proceedings against the officials

responsible for this and for the previous similar incident in the

prison at Wiener-Neustadt. But apparently his charges were dismissed

as being insignificant (niedergeschlagen wegen Geringfügigkeit). He

also addressed a claim for compensation. He submits that he was

informed that the second letter would be at the expense of the State

but that he would get his money back only in 1999.

He further states that, during his detention in Stein prison, his

health was ruined and in particular that, as the result of the work

which he had to perform, he now suffers from an inguinal hernia.

With regard to these injuries and to those suffered on .. July, 1964,

when he jumped off the train between Vienna and Wiener-Neustadt and

with regard to the two cases in which he was charged for two stamps

instead of one, he filed in 1965 with the Regional Court (Landesgericht

für Zivilsachen) of Vienna an action for damages against the State,

which according to him has not yet been determined by the Court.

The Court assigned a lawyer of Krems to represent him in these

proceedings. This lawyer informed him, on .. March, 1966, that he had

presented the claim first to the Office of the Attorney of the Treasury

and that he would have to wait three months for its decision. In reply,

the Applicant demanded a copy of the request lodged on his behalf with

the Attorney of the Treasury, but without success. Instead he was

informed on .. May, 1966, that the lawyer had asked the Court's

permission to resign from this case (Enthebung beantragt). On .. June,

1966, the lawyer himself wrote to the Applicant that he could not act

for him because the claims were exaggerated. On .. June, 1966, the

Applicant was heard by the Court but no decision was taken. Subsequent

letters to the Court remained without reply.

The Applicant states, without giving further details, that he has now

brought an action on the ground of tardiness and a claim for damages

(Säumnisklage verbunden mit einem Schadensersatzanspruch) against the

lawyer.

He further alleges that the food in Stein prison is harmful to him

because he is suffering from various diseases although he is given a

special diet. Upon his complaint in this respect he was told on ..

November, 1964, by the Supervising Prosecution Officer (Hauskommissär)

that he should address himself first of all to the prison authority.

Whether he did so and with what result is not clear.

The Applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15

of the Convention. He attacks the merits of all the decisions mentioned

above and complains in particular of the fact that both in the trial

and on appeal he has had no adequate time to prepare his defence

together with his lawyer.

THE LAW

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant complains of inadequate time and

facilities for the preparation of the defence due to the late

appointment and the several changes of his lawyers and to the

non-receipt of his letter by the lawyer who appeared for him on the

hearing of the appeal, the Applicant has failed to show that either he

or his lawyer raised this point before the Court of Appeal and asked

for an adjournment; whereas further the question might arise whether

such request for adjournment could be considered a remedy which the

Applicant should have exhausted in order to satisfy the terms of

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention;

Whereas, however, the Commission decides to leave open the question

whether or not in these circumstances the Applicant exhausted the

domestic remedies in accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26);

Whereas, according to paragraph (3) (b) of Article 6 (Art. 6-3-b) of

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

"to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his

defence";

Whereas, furthermore, according to paragraph (3) (c) of the same

Article (Art. 6-3-c), he has the right "to defend himself in person or

through legal assistance of his own choosing", or in certain

circumstances to have free legal assistance; whereas, in order to

determine whether the right to have adequate time and facilities for

the preparation of the defence has been respected, account must be

taken of the general situation of the defence, whether such defence is

carried out by the accused himself or through a lawyer;

Whereas the Applicant had been arrested on .. October, 1963, on several

charges of fraud and had thus himself four months to prepare his

defence before the opening of the proceedings before the trial court

and a further period of four months to prepare his defence on appeal;

whereas it is true that the defending counsel, both at the trial and

at the appeal hearing, was only appointed shortly before the hearing;

whereas, however, the Applicant has failed to show that as a result of

inadequate time to instruct his lawyer on a particular point, he

suffered a prejudice in the proceedings at the trial or on appeal;

whereas it is to be observed in this context that the appeal concerned

only the length of the sentence imposed and that the Applicant's plea

of nullity concerning the conviction had been withdrawn; whereas

therefore a relatively short period was sufficient for the preparation

of the defence by the defending counsel;

Whereas, consequently, 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 in particular in Article 6, paragraphs (3) (b) and

(c) (Art. 6-3-b, 6-3-c); 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 complaints as to the incidents

which occurred and the measures which were taken against him during his

detention at Wiener-Neustadt and Stein, 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

accordingto the generally recognised rules of international law; and

whereas the Applicant failed to show that he has finally seized the

Constitutional Court; whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted all

remedies available to him under Austrian 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, therefore,

the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in

Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention

has not been complied with by the Applicant;

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed against

his lawyer who represented him in subsequent civil proceedings for

damages, 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 his rights under the Convention by one of

the Parties which have 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 individuals; whereas it follows that this part of the

Application is incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) (see Application No. 1599/62,

Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 6, pages

348, 356);

Whereas, in so far as the above complaint gives rise to the question

whether the Regional Court failed to ensure that the Applicant's

defence was properly carried out with the consequence that he was not

given a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention, 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 this right; whereas it follows that, in

this respect, the Application is 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.