THE FACTS

Whereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may be

summarised as follows:

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1926 and at present detained

in prison at Düsseldorf.

1. The Applicant states that, on .. March, 1964, he was detained on

remand (Untersuchungshaft) on suspicion of aggravated theft. When he

wrote to the Commission on 17th July 1966, he stated that he was still

in detention on remand and that an indictment had not yet been issued

against him. By letter of 19th December, 1966, he confirmed that he was

still in detention on remand but indicated at the same time that he had

been convicted in respect of certain charges by a court which he

considered to be prejudiced against him.

The Applicant has not submitted full information regarding the

proceedings before the German courts in respect of his detention.

In his first letter to the Commission (21st May, 1965), he indicated

that proceedings regarding his detention (Haftprüfung) had taken place,

but he complained that he had not been allowed to express his views in

these proceedings ("in keiner Fase der Haftprüfung hat man mich

sprechen lassen, sondern man hat mir den Mund verboten"). In his

application form (11th September, 1965) he also referred to his appeals

against detention (Anträge auf Haftüberprüfung) but without providing

any details about them.

In a subsequent letter to the Commission (17th July, 1966), he stated

that he had repeatedly applied to the Regional Court (Landgericht) of

Düsseldorf for an oral hearing regarding the continuation of his

detention. This had not been granted until .. March, 1966, that is

after two years' detention and, moreover, his lawyer had not been asked

to appear at the hearing.

2. The Applicant states that he is innocent in respect of the offenses

of which he is suspected and that there is evidence to prove his

innocence. However, as the Public Prosecutor has failed to indicate the

date of the alleged offence, the Applicant is unable to present a valid

alibi and, if he should try to do this, the Public Prosecutor would

only state that the offence might have been committed on another

occasion.

The Applicant also complains that the authorities have tried to obtain

a confession from him by using improper methods, such as blackmail and

ill-treatment.

In particular, he alleges that he has been ill-treated during his

detention both in connection with his interrogation by the police and

otherwise in prison. As a result of this alleged ill-treatment, he

suffered serious injuries. His left eye was so badly injured that he

had to be treated at the prison hospital for six months and the sight

of that eye has remained affected.

The Applicant further complains that, in order to aggravate his

detention, the prison authorities have refused, contrary to general

practice, to let him have books from the prison library or to give him

permission to use a transistor radio. He also complains that he has not

been allowed to be represented by a lawyer appointed by himself but

only by a lawyer appointed ex officio in whom he has no confidence, and

that the prison administration has interfered with his right of defence

by suppressing his letters to lawyers and public authorities.

3. The Applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 6, paragraphs (1),

(2) and (3), 8 and 9 of the Convention.

Proceedings before the Commission

Whereas the proceedings before the Commission may be summarised as

follows:

I. Questions of interference with the Applicant's right to correspond

with the Commission (Article 25 of the Convention)

1. The Applicant first wrote to the Commission on 21st May, 1965, and

he received in reply the usual information regarding the submission of

an application to the Commission.

By letter of 21st October, 1965, he informed the Commission that he had

tried to send his formal application to the Commission but that it had

been seized by the German authorities. He also enclosed a copy of a

decision of .. September, 1965, by which a letter written by the

Applicant to the Council of Europe had been stopped ("von der

Beförderung ausgeschlossen") by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf

because of defamatory contents.

On 14th December, 1965, the Commission decided to request information

from the Federal Government in regard to the seizure of his letter.

On 10th February, 1966, the Government informed the Commission that the

Regional Court of Düsseldorf had, after "a new examination", revised

its decision of .. September, 1965, by which the Applicant's letter had

been seized.

In the meanwhile, the Commission's Secretary had received, on 31st

January, 1966, the Applicant's application form dated 11th September,

1965, and had duly registered it.

2. On 15th June, 1966, the Commission's Secretary received from the

Applicant a letter containing further submissions in regard to the

present Application. This letter seemed to have been originally dated

16th November, 1965 but this date had apparently been changed to 8th

June, 1966.

In reply, the Secretary asked the Applicant when he had actually

written and sent the letter which had been received on 15th June, 1966.

The Applicant replied that he had written and sent this letter on 16th

November, 1965 but that it had then apparently not been forwarded and

that, subsequently, the date had been changed.

3. The Applicant indicated that he could not in his letters give the

Commission full information in regard to his complaints since he would

then run the risk of being subjected to reprisals. He also stated that

he did not find it advisable to enclose any documents with his letters

to the Commission as he could not be certain as to whether such

documents would ever reach the Commission.

The Applicant therefore requested that the Commission should appoint

a "neutral" person to whom he could personally confide information and

documents which he wished to submit to the Commission.

II. Insulting language in the Applicant's submissions

On 6th October, 1966, the Commission observed, during its examination

of the Application, that in some of his submissions the Applicant had

made use of insulting and provocative language. The Commission,

therefore, decided to inform the Applicant that, unless he was prepared

to withdraw or amend certain passages of his submissions, it would

reject the whole Application as being an abuse of the right of petition

within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention.

The passage concerned were the following:

(a) In his application form of 11th September, 1965, he wrote: "They

reproach me of having been an opponent of the Hitler Reich and call

this a bad past. But I reproach the Court of working as Nazi judges in

the German Courts" (Meine Widerstandsbewegung gegen das Hitlerreich

wirft man mir als schlechte Vergangenheit vor. Ich dagegen werfe dem

Gericht vor, dass sie als Nazi-Richter in den deutschen Gerichten

walten).

(b) In his letter of 13th April, 1966, he wrote: "My opinion in this

respect is that one can only obtain right here by means of money and

that otherwise one is in a bad position" (Meine Auffassung zu diesen

Dingen ist, dass man sich hier nur Recht durch Geld verschaffen kann

oder sonst benachteiligt ist).

(c) In his letter which arrived on 15th June, 1966, he wrote: "I allege

that the German Justice makes use of the meanest methods which are

worse than those of the Hitler Reich in order to break my resistance.

For this reason, I can have no respect for German Justice, since it

suppresses in a horrible manner and with impermissible methods any

better feelings of an individual ... .They tell me that we live in a

State founded on law, but I doubt this. I have more respect for a

prostitute than for German Justice" (Ich mache der deutschen Justiz den

Vorwurf, dass sie die gemeinsten Mittel, die das Hitlerreich

übersteigen, anwendet um mich mürbe zu machen. Ich kann aus diesem

Grunde keine Achtung vor der deutschen Justiz haben, weil sie mit

unerlaubten Mitteln jede bessere Regung eines einzelnen Menschen

grausam unterdrücken tut ... . Sie sprechen mich an, wir leben in einem

Rechtsstaat, aber ich stelle das in Zweifel. Achtung habe ich vor jeder

Dirne [mehr] als vor der Justiz in Deutschland.)

By letter of 9th January, 1967, the Applicant replied in the following

way:

"(a) The application form of 11th September, 1965 is changed so as to

indicate that I only wanted to show the method used in this respect.

(b) The letter of 13th April, 1966 is changed so as to indicate that

these are facts which can be proved by recent newspaper reports.

(c) The last sentence is deleted: 'I have more respect ...'  The method

of treating people in detention on remand is proved by the trials in

Cologne and Hamburg. May complaints in this regard have had no effect."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[(a) Beschwerdeformular vom 11.9.65 wird dahin geändert, dass ich nur

die Methode wie man das macht, aufzeigen wollte.

(b) Brief vom 13. April 1966 wird dahin geändert, dass dieses Tatsachen

sind, die man durch neueste Zeitungsberichte belegen kann.

(c) Der letzte Absatz wird gestrichen: "Achtung habe ich vor ..."  Die

Methode, wie man in U-Haft behandelt wird, beweisen die Prozesse in

Köln und Hamburg. Meine Anzeigen hat man diesbezüglich fallen

gelassen.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THE LAW

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

provides that "the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition

submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25), which it considers an abuse of

the right of petition";

Whereas, in the present case, the Applicant's pleadings contained three

passages which were provocative and insulting to the respondent

Government; whereas, therefore, the Commission invited the Applicant

to withdraw or amend these passages; whereas the Commission also

informed him that, unless he was prepared to withdraw or amend these

passages, it would reject the whole Application as being an abuse of

the right of petition within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant has, by letter of 9th January, 1967, submitted

his reply to this statement by the Commission;

Whereas the Commission considers that, in respect of the first two

objectionable passages quoted above, the Applicant's reply cannot be

considered to constitute a withdrawal or an acceptable amendment;

Whereas, in respect of the third passage, it is true that the Applicant

has withdrawn the very last sentence but, on the other hand, he seems

to confirm, rather than withdraw, the rest of his statements contained

in that passage;

Whereas, consequently, the Applicant has not satisfied the conditions

indicated to him by the Commission; and whereas in these circumstances

the Commission considers that the Applicant has abused the right of

petition within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2)

of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission observes that in the present case the Applicant

has also alleged that there had been certain interferences with his

right to correspond with the Commission; whereas these allegations

raise an issue under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention and do not

concern the admissibility of the Application itself;

Whereas, nevertheless, the Commission has had in mind the fact that the

Application is to be declared inadmissible as being an abuse of the

right of petition; whereas, in these particular circumstances, the

Commission does not find it necessary to examine further the question

whether or to what extent there has been undue interference with the

Applicant's effective exercise of his right to present his case to the

Commission.

Now therefore the Commission

1. declares the Application INADMISSIBLE.

2. decides to take no further action in regard to the allegations

relating to the Applicant's correspondence with the Commission.