THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1897 and at present living

at Essen.

The Applicant's lengthy statements may be summarised as follows:

He is a disabled miner living on a pension. He has made repeated

attempts to secure the increased pension provided by law for cases of

silicosis, from the Mining Employers Association for Workmen's

Compensation (Bergbau-Berufsgenossenschaft). It appears that his claim

for such a pension was rejected on ... 1958, by the Social Court of

Appeal (Landessozialgericht) North-Rhine-Westphalia. An application

to reopen these proceedings (Restitutionsklage) made by the Applicant

to the same Court was apparently withdrawn by him on ... 1962. The

Applicant also brought proceedings against the Ruhr Miners

Association (Ruhrknappschaft). He has supplied no information about

these latter proceedings, except that they were decided by the Social

Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on ... 1959.

The Applicant states that over many years he has invented processes

important to the mechanisation and safety of the mining industry.

Whereas some of these inventions were accepted, many were not. Because

of this, the Applicant published statements concerning various persons

whom he believed to be responsible for rejecting his ideas.

Proceedings were brought against him in the District Court

(Amtsgericht) Essen for defamation (Beleidigung). It appears that

during the hearing the in the District Court on ... 1957, the Applicant

withdrew his remarks. He was also medically examined, in relation to

these proceedings, but was found to be fully responsible for his

actions.

The Applicant states that he has made a number of complaints regarding

his inventions but the only details which he gives of these complaints

are that the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), Munich, gave

a decision on ... 1964.

In regard to his claims for a pension the Applicant complains that the

judicial decisions have been based on false medical opinions. He states

that the decision of ... 1962, (when he apparently withdrew his

application for reopening proceedings) was contrary to law, because he

was not provided by the Court with a lawyer (Pflichtverteidiger). He

claims to have asked the Court on five occasions for the services of

a lawyer, and to have been refused each time. He claims that all the

defendants are motivated by a desire for revenge because he is able to

expose many cases of false evidence given on their behalf in similar

matters.

In regard to his inventions, the Applicant claims that since 1943 these

have been stolen from him. He states that he has repeatedly sought

recognition of his rights over the years, but that he has never had a

proper judicial hearing. He states that he has made thirty complaints

(Klageakte) and that he has sent "mountains" of files to the Public

Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) Essen.

He further complains that his lawyers, as well as the Patent Office

in Munich, are acting against him. In relation to the judgment of ...

1964, of the Federal Patent Court, the Applicant complains that three

judges of the Appeal Chamber (Beschwerde-Senat) are incompetent.

The Applicant also makes allegations of incompetence against the

Government, various Secretaries of State, political figures, the

Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof), the Public Prosecutor's Office in

Essen and lawyers in Essen generally.

The Applicant asks the Commission to obtain a lawyer for him, as he

wishes his cases to be reopened and his documents and proofs examined.

He also wishes criminal charges to be brought against the persons who

are suppressing his ideas.

The Applicant states that he wishes the Commission to assist him under

Articles 8, 13 and 26 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that he has not been

granted an increased pension, 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 the right to a pension is not

as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention;

whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decisions

Nos. 93/55, 1723/62, 1788/63, 1988/63; whereas no circumstances have

been shown to exist which call for an examination of the questions

relating to Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) to the Convention (see

Commission's decision in Application No. 2310/64); whereas it follows

that thispart of the Application is incompatible with the provisions

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

(Art. 27-2), ofthe Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings relating to the Applicant's claim

for a pension and in particular relating to his complaint that he was

not provided with a lawyer to pursue these claims, the question arises

whether the right to an increased pension of this kind is to be

considered as a "civil right" within the meaning of paragraph (1) of

Article 6 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention; whereas however the Commission

does not find it necessary to determine the question in the present

case;

Whereas it feels an examination of the case as it has been submitted

does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)

of the Convention; whereas it follows that in any event the Application

is in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article

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

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

securing a reopening of the proceedings relating to his unsuccessful

claims for patents and of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer for

this purpose, 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), in 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 the rights alleged above are

not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by

the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its

previous decisions (for example No. 1982/63 R. v. Austria);

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 so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed against

lawyers who were representing him in proceedings relating to his claims

for patents, 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

(Art. 27-2) (2) (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Volume 6, pages 348, 356);

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

proceedings have not been instituted against various private

individuals 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 the right to

have criminal proceedings instituted against private individuals is not

as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its

constant jurisprudence (for example Application 1599/62 - Yearbook of

the European Convention on Human Rights Volume 6, pages 348, 356);

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 remainder of the Application, 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 Articles 6, 8 or 13 (Art. 6, 8, or 13); 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.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.