Search
document

Document text Analytics

X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 2137/64 • ECHR ID: 001-2978

Document date: July 7, 1964

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 2137/64 • ECHR ID: 001-2978

Document date: July 7, 1964

Cited paragraphs only

THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a Polish citizen born in 1927. He has several previous

convictions.

It appears that he was arrested in 1962 under suspicion of having

committed theft and that in 1963, he was convicted by the Regional

Court (Landgericht) of H and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months

imprisonment.

He alleges that his is not guilty of the crimes concerned and that,

even if he were, he should have been convicted for embezzlement

(Fundunterschlagung) and not for theft (Diebstahl). He further alleges

that one of the lay judges went to sleep during the hearing and that

the Court refused to hear six witnesses whom the defence wished to

call. In his reply of 1963 to the Applicant's appeal, the Public

Prosecutor, having heard witnesses, stated that the lay judge in

question had been fully awake during the entire hearing of the case and

had, indeed, put several questions to the parties. He further stated

that the lawyer acting on behalf of the Applicant expressly renounced

his right to call the above witnesses.

In 1963 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) of A rejected the

Applicant's appeal and in 1964 the Federal Constitutional Court

rejected a constitutional complaint lodged by him.

In the meanwhile, the Applicant lodged a complaint against the judges

of the Regional Court of H accusing them of illegally depriving him of

his liberty. This complaint was rejected by the Public Prosecutor of

H in 1963 and by the Supreme Public Prosecutor (General-Staatsanwalt)

of A in 1964.

Whereas, in respect of the above proceedings, the Applicant alleges

violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and he states that the

lawyer appointed by the Court to act on his behalf grossly neglected

his professional duties.

Furthermore, he states that in 1963 he gave to the prison authorities

a letter for dispatch to the Secretary to the Commission. In 1963 he

was informed that the letter had been confiscated (beschlagnahmt) by

a decision of the above Court on the ground that it contained

slanderous statements. He maintains that he did no more than expose the

truth in respect of the proceedings which led to his conviction.

In 1964 the Respondent Government admitted that the Applicant's above

letter had, in fact, been confiscated. It forwarded to the Commission

at the same time, a copy of the letter concerned.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings before the Regional Court of A,

the Federal Court and the Constitutional Court, 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, the

provisions of Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) invoked by the Applicant;

Whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded and

must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas, in respect of the confiscation of the Applicant's letter by

the decision of the Regional Court of H in 1963, the Commission has

carefully considered this question in the light of the last sentence

of Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1);

Whereas the Commission considers that this confiscation hindered the

Applicant in the presentation of his petition and thereby constituted

a violation of this provision of Article 25 (Art. 25);

Whereas, however, the Commission has had regard to the facts that the

Respondent Government had at a later date forwarded to the Commission

the said letter and had itself taken appropriate measures to ensure in

the future the full observance of Article 25 (Art. 25) by the domestic

authorities concerned;

Whereas the Commission does not consider that the Applicant had finally

been frustrated in the submission of his present Application and

therefore decides in this case to take no further steps.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant