THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1922 and at present

detained in prison at Duisburg.

From his statements and from the documents submitted by the Applicant

it appears that a warrant for arrest was issued against him on ..

August, 1964 and he was detained on remand on .. August, 1964.  He

states that on .. September, 1964 he lodged an application with the

Regional Court (Landgericht) at Duisburg to have the reasons for his

detention examined (Haftprüfungsverfahren).  It appears that his lawyer

later withdrew this application upon receiving an undertaking from

the presiding judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court

that the Applicant would be brought to trial within 3 weeks. On ..

November, 1964, however, the Applicant lodged a second such application

with the Regional Court of Duisburg which was rejected on .. November,

1964.  An appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision to the Court of Appeal

(Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf was dismissed on .. December, 1964.

On .. January, 1965, the Applicant lodged a third application with the

Regional Court of Duisburg to have the reasons for his detention

examined but this was rejected on .. February, 1965.  He states that

he lodged an appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision on .. February,

1965.On .. May, 1965, the Applicant was convicted on charges of fraud

by the Regional Court of Duisburg and sentenced to 4 years' penal

servitude.

The Applicant complains that he was wrongly detained on remand in

that he had never intended to abscond from the jurisdiction of the

Court and that this suspicion had been the reason for his detention.

He further complains that on account of the fact that letters from

prison had to be approved by the prison authorities, his letters were

delayed and that, while in the State Hospital at Bedburg-Hau for

observation, three letters to his lawyers were opened, read and held

back for 8 days before they were forwarded.

The Applicant also complains that his sentence was too severe.

He alleges a violation of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning his

conviction and sentence, 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 show that he appealed from the Regional Court's

decision of .. May, 1965 to the competent court; whereas, therefore,

he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the length

of his detention on remand, it appears that he failed to lodge a

constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); whereas, therefore,

in this respect also 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 in either case 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 any event, in regard to the above complaint concerning the

length of the Applicant's detention on remand, an examination of the

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

officio, does not, in the particular circumstances of the present case,

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

forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 5, paragraph (3)

(Art. 5-3);

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 complains that the prison authorities at Duisburg

and the hospital authorities at Bedburg-Hau opened, read, and delayed

the transmission of several letters to his lawyers, the delay in one

case amounting to eight days; whereas in this respect the Commission

has had regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees

to everyone the right to respect for his correspondence and authorises

interference with the exercise of this right only under certain

conditions set out in paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 8-2); whereas

the question arises whether the authorities concerned, by the acts

described, interfered with his freedom of correspondence; whereas it

is to be observed that an ordinary control of correspondence is

considered to be an inherent feature of imprisonment; whereas, having

regard to the very short delay in the transmission of the letters

concerned, the Commission finds that the conduct of the prison or

hospital authorities does not amount to an interference with the

Applicant's freedom of correspondence within the meaning of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention; whereas it follows that this complaint is

manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article

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

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.