THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a British subject, born in 1924 and at present

detained in the prison of Straubing (Federal Republic of Germany). He

has a number of previous convictions in England.

On ... 1964, he was convicted by the Regional Court (Grosse Strafkammer

des Landgerichts) of Würzburg of seven offence of indecent assault,

theft, fraud, forgery and unauthorised wearing of a uniform. He was

sentenced to a total of three and a half years' imprisonment. It

appears from the Applicant's statement that, before his arrest, the

German Police had launched an intensive search for him. They informed

the Press that he was wanted for offenses of murder, rape and

kidnapping. As a result there were reports in newspapers, on radio and

television that the Applicant was a dangerous criminal, a sex maniac

and killer of women and children. He was called the "phantom murderer".

He was arrested on ... 1964, on a charge of attempted rape. After his

arrest, detailed press report made public the prosecution case against

him.

The Applicant has made numerous complaints about this publicity. On ...

1964, his lawyer wrote to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice complaining

that the defence had been prejudiced. This complaint was apparently

rejected on .. 1964.

On ... 1964, the Applicant complained to a member of the United Kingdom

Parliament. He received the reply that the complaint had been sent to

the Home Secretary, who had no authority to intervene.

On ... 1964, the Applicant lodged another complaint with the Bavarian

Ministry of Internal Affairs, accusing a police official, named D, of

making the prejudicial disclosures to the press. It appears that the

complaint was rejected.

On ... 1965, he brought criminal charges (Strafanzeige) concerning an

article in the "8 Uhr Blatt". On ... 1965, he was informed by the

Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Regional Court of Nuremberg that

the proceedings had been discontinued (eingestellt) because the

limitation period for a prosecution had expired.

It appears that the Applicant also brought criminal charges on ... and

... 1965, against the same police official and against the publication

"Bild Zeitung" for contravention of the Press Laws (Pressegesetz) and

insults (Beleidigung). These proceedings were also discontinued

(eingestellt) by the Senior Public Prosecutor (Leitender

Oberstaatsanwalt) of the Regional Court of Hamburg because the

limitation period had expired.

The Applicant complains that the press publicity before the trial,

instigated by the police, violated Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2),

in conjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He states

that he has no legal redress and has been unable to clear his name. His

family and fiancée left him on account of the publicity.

He complains that on ... 1964, the Regional Court of Flensburg refused

to translate an indictment against him into English. As he could not

read German, he alleges a violation of Article 5, paragraph (2), and

Article 6, paragraph (3) (a), of the Convention. No further details

have been given of these proceedings.

The Applicant makes a large number of complaints about the conditions

in the prison of Straubing. He states that there is no church or

minister of the Church of England in the area of Straubing. He

therefore has no opportunity to worship in his faith and is deprived

of spiritual comfort. His request to be transferred to Celle, where

there is a Church of England minister, has been refused. It seems that

this matter was the subject of an unsuccessful application to the

Bavarian Ministry of Justice. The Applicant alleges a continuing

violation of Article 9, paragraph (1), in conjunction with Articles 16,

17 and 18 of the Convention.

The Applicant states that his treatment in prison amounts to

humiliation, torture and degradation. He has to live together with war

criminals and murderers.

He further states that the conditions in the prison are a mental and

physical punishment designed for the destruction of criminals. He

states that there has been press comment about brutality in the prison.

On ... 1965, he brought charges of manslaughter arising from the death

of prisoners to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office in

Nuremberg. On ... 1965, he was informed that there was no indication

of any criminal conduct and the proceedings were discontinued.

The Applicant states that he is an "85 % war pensioned epileptic

paralytic". He had been successfully undergoing treatment by drugs. In

prison he received no drugs and his condition is getting worse and his

epileptic fits are more frequent. He has to spend 23 hours a day in a

stone cell, sleeping only on an old mattress on the floor, and has no

protection against injuring himself in a fit. On eight occasions he has

been punished by being placed in the "bunker", a steel cage in the

punishment cell in which one can only stand or sit. On one occasion his

hands were fastened behind his back. He accuses the prison guards of

enjoying his suffering and states that the torture resembles that in

Nazi concentration camps.

He claims that the prison authorities take no account of his history

of ill-health. On ... 1966, he was found fit for bunker punishment by

the prison doctor without being seen by the doctor on that day. On

another occasion, after he had been on hunger strike for six days, he

was found fit for further punishment. In his letter of ... 1966, to the

Bavarian Minister of Justice he complains of these matters and states

that on a visit to the prison the Minister saw him undergoing "bunker"

punishment.

On ... 1965, after a fit, he was sent to the psychiatric section. He

states that "strait jackets, padded cells, violence and drug sedation

are the order of the day" and that the guards exercised their brutality

on the prisoners. He was treated as though he was insane and subjected

to a degrading physical search. He complained in writing to the prison

director who refused to read his letter.

He complains that the prison diet is poor, amounting to only 1.000

calories a day. On this prisoners have to work eight hours a day. On

... 1965, he started a hunger strike in protest against the poor food.

On ... he was placed on report (Strafreport) for going on hunger strike

and for insulting the prison food. He states that there is no appeal

against this treatment. He gives the names of witnesses who support his

allegations but states that the other prisoners do not complain for

fear of punishment.

He alleges that the treatment he has to suffer in the prison is inhuman

and degrading and violates Article 3 in conjunction with Articles 14,

17 and 18 of the Convention.

The Applicant states that he and other prisoners are forced to work 42

hours a week for private industries but have no right to wages. The

private industries pay normal wages to the Bavarian State for the work

done by the prisoners but the latter only receive between 0.30 DM and

0.80 DM a day. Over and above their normal task they can only earn up

to 20 DM a month. The Applicant has unsuccessfully brought an

indictment against the Management Committee (Vorstand) and the Bavarian

State, accusing them of slavery and exploitation of prisoners. This

exploitation arises in the sale of articles made by the prisoners. The

prisoners are also charged admission fees to see films which are

provided to the prison free of charge. He asks the Commission not to

decide these complaints without investigating them and hearing the

witnesses named in his letter of ... 1965.

He alleges violations of Article 4, in conjunction with Articles 14,

17 and 18 of the Convention in this respect.

The Applicant complains that there is no freedom of opinion or

expression in the prison. Letters in which he expressed his opinion of

the prison and its staff were suppressed. For one expression in a

letter he was punished by loss of correspondence with his family for

three months.

He alleges that these restrictions violate Articles 8, 9 and 10 in

conjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention.

The Applicant states that he was not permitted to write a letter "in

pursuit of a law action against a newspaper". He therefore made a

demonstration and went on hunger strike. For this he was punished but

was later permitted to write the letter. Other letters are suppressed

or destroyed. The Applicant complained of this to the Minister of

Justice on ... and ... 1965.

The Applicant makes a general complaint of the length of detention

pending trial in the Federal Republic, alleging violation of Articles

5 and 6 of the Convention. He does not state that these complaints

relate to his own case.

In his letter of ... 1965, the Applicant states that the disciplinary

procedure for putting prisoners on "report" is unjust. Not only are the

reports made by the prison guards false and the prisoners given no time

to prepare a defence but the decision is taken regardless of the

evidence. He alleges that Article 6, paragraph (3) (a) and (b), which

apply to such proceedings, are violated. On ... 1966, he brought

charges for causing bodily harm (Körperverletzung im Amt) against four

persons. He complained that he had been punished without investigation,

in a manner dangerous to health. The Public Prosecutor's Office at the

Regional Court of Regensburg rejected the charges on ... 1966.

With regard to Article 26 of the Convention, the Applicant states that

in practice a prisoner has no right to appeal. The Bavarian Ministry

of Justice has rejected all the complaints he has made.These have dealt

with all the allegations made in his complaint to the Commission.

On ... 1966, he was able to raise his complaints again in an interview

with members of the Bavarian Parliament but without success.

The Applicant complains of interference with his communications with

the Commission. He has been prevented from obtaining further evidence

from a newspaper, the "8 Uhr Blatt". In ... 1966 letters to other

persons were not sent because he could not pay postage. His supply of

writing paper is restricted in contravention of a decision of the Court

of Appeal of Munich. The fact that all letters are censored violates

Articles 25 and 33 of the Convention, in the Applicant's view.

The Applicant has asked the Commission to send a delegation to

investigate his allegations and was originally willing to contribute

£ 100 for the cost. The Applicant stated in ... 1966 that a lawyer, Dr.

B, had taken up his case. This lawyer has not communicated with the

Commission.

In all, the Applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6,

8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 33 of the Convention.

On 11th August, 1965, the Applicant stated that he would "cancel" his

Application unless he was assured that it would be fairly investigated.

On 7th July, 1966, he wrote "in view of your refusal to assist me in

these exceptional circumstances and the inordinate length of time

involved and money wasted in dealing with my Application, I herewith

cancel my Application ...".

On 24th August, 1966, the Applicant asked for the return of all his

documents, for the purpose of evidence in other court actions.

On 10th November, 1966, the Applicant wrote to the Commission stating

that, on the advice of his solicitor, he wished not to abandon his

previous request to withdraw his Application. He asked the Commission

to realise that the degrading and demoralising conditions of his

imprisonment caused him to write his letter withdrawing his

Application. He apologised for its impolite terms.

THE LAW

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

press, radio or television enterprises and relate to alleged defamatory

reports made before or during his trial in the Regional Court of

Würzburg, 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 individuals or enterprises;

Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previous

decisions Nos. 172/56 (S. v. Sweden - Yearbook I, page 211) and 852/60

(S. v. Federal Republic of Germany - ibid. IV, page 346); whereas, in

any event, the right to reputation is not as such guaranteed by the

Convention;

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

disclose any grounds on which the alleged conduct of the press, radio

or television enterprises concerned 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 the Applicant's complaints that he was prejudiced

at this trial in the Regional Court of Würzburg as a result of press,

radio or television reports, 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 appeal against his conviction; whereas, therefore,

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

whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted

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 the Convention has not been complied

with by the Applicant;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that on ... 1964, the

Regional Court of Flensburg refused to translate into English an

indictment against him, he has failed to supply any details of these

proceedings or to show that he lodged an appeal in respect of them;

whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies available

to him under German law and has not complied with the condition laid

down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the

Convention;

Whereas the same ground of inadmissibility also applies in regard to

the Applicant's complaints concerning his treatment in prison and

relating to his detention in a so-called 'steel cage', as he failed to

seize the competent courts of these complaints;

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

standard of food in the prison of Straubing and to the alleged

obligation of prisoners to work for low wages, 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 3 and 4 (Art. 3, 4); whereas it follows that

this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within it he

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

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

of a priest of the Church of England or of facilities for worship

according to the rites of the Church of England in the prison of

Straubing, it is to be observed that there is no evidence that a

Protestant pastor or facilities for worship in the Protestant religion

are not available to the Applicant; whereas, therefore, 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 9 (Art. 9); 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 concerning the

allegedly unfair system of dealing with disciplinary offenses in the

prison of Straubing and in so far as the Applicant alleges violations

of Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), in relation

to such proceedings against him, it is to be observed that these two

provisions guarantee certain procedural rights to 'everyone charged

with a criminal offence'; whereas the Applicant was clearly not a

person "charged with a criminal offence"; whereas it follows that the

rights set out in Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-

b), are not applicable to the proceedings of which the Applicant

complains; 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 complaints of interference by the

prison authorities with his correspondence, by censoring his letters

and restricting his correspondence to third persons, it is to be

observed that, although Article 8 of the Convention, in paragraph (1)

(Art. 8-1), provides that everyone has the right to respect for his

correspondence, paragraph (2) of the same Article (Art. 8-2) permits

interference by a public authority with the exercise of these rights

where such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessary

in a democratic society, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder or

crime;

Whereas, in cases in which the rights guaranteed in Article 8 (Art. 8)

are at issue, the Commission has the right and indeed the ability to

appreciate whether or not interference by a public authority fulfils

the conditions laid down in paragraph (2) of the Article (Art. 8-2);

whereas the Commission has frequently held that this Article leaves the

Contracting Parties a certain margin of appreciation in determining the

limits which may be placed on the right in question; whereas an

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

interference with the Applicant's freedom of correspondence was in any

way an abuse of the Respondent Government's right to impose such

limitations or was carried out in a manner contrary to the Convention;

whereas it follows that no appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention has been

disclosed;

Whereas, therefore, 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 of interference with

his correspondence with the Commission, as a result of the restriction

or censorship of his letters, the Commission has examined this

allegation in the light of Article 25 (Art. 25); whereas it is to be

observed that the Applicant has been able to write frequently and at

length to the Commission;

Whereas the Commission does not find any reason to believe that the

Applicant has been in any way hindered in the effective exercise of his

right of petition under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.