THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in ... and living in A.

From the copy of a decision of the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof)

submitted by the Applicant, it appears that, in ..., he became legal

adviser and later president of the board of directors of the firm Y.

He was dismissed from this post in 1933 and, following his arrest by

the Gestapo, detained in prison from ... to ... 1935.

An arbitration court (Schiedsgericht) decided in ... 1938 that Y should

pay to the Applicant, inter alia, a monthly pension of 2.500

Reichsmark.

In May 1941, the Applicant was charged with misappropriation of funds

(handelsrechtliche Untreue) and offenses against exchange regulations

(Devisenvergehen) and he was detained in prison until December 1941.

In November 1942 he was informed that Y intended to sue him for damages

amounting to over five million Reichsmarks.

Under a settlement, signed on ... 1943, the Applicant renounced his

pension claim against Y.  The criminal proceedings against him were

subsequently discontinued on ... 1943.

In 1951, 1952 and 1953, when he was allegedly in a difficult financial

situation, the Applicant received 500 DM per month from Y.  In 1953 he

asked the Federal Chancellor, Dr. Adenauer, to support his pension

claim against Y.  He reminded Dr. Adenauer that, in 1929, he had given

his shares in Y of substantial value and he threatened to sue him.  In

a letter to Y, Dr. Adenauer stated that, in fact, he could claim

substantial damages from the Applicant personally, quite apart from the

question whether Y could also be held liable for the acts of the

Applicant.

On 8th December 1953, a new settlement was reached between Y and the

Applicant whereby, inter alia.  Y agreed to pay him a monthly pension

of 1.250 DM.  At the same time the Applicant wrote a letter to Dr.

Adenauer in which he renounced all claims against him.

The Applicant submits that the settlements of 1943 and 1953 are

invalid.  He has sued Y for a monthly pension of 2.500 DM. This claim

was dismissed by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of B on ... 1960 and,

on appeal (Berufung) and further appeal (Revision), by the Court of

Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) at C on ... 1961 and by the Federal Court

on ... 1963 respectively.  The Courts held that the 1953 settlement was

valid and binding upon the parties and that, consequently, it was not

necessary to examine the validity of the 1943 settlement.  The

Applicant states that he had no possibility to appeal to the Federal

Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).

He now alleges generally a violation of human rights. He states that

he was a victim of Nazi persecution and that also his agreement to the

1953 settlement was obtained by duress. He further submits that the

Federal Court "ignored and did not examine":

1. that he had been recognised by the competent German authorities as

a victim of Nazi persecution:

2. that his agreement to the settlements of 1943 and 1953 had been

"illegally extorted" from him, and

3. that there was a "shocking disproportion of the performances" in the

1953 settlement.

The Applicant also complains that the Court failed to examine:

1. the value of his claim against Dr. Adenauer,

2. the value of his "still existing" pension claim,

3. the "non-existing" claim of Dr. Adenauer against Y, and

4. that Dr. Adenauer was "liberated from his debts" at the Applicant's

expense.  The Applicant considers that the "political influences from

two sides" (former Nazis and Dr. Adenauer) probably have caused the

"apparent partiality" of the Federal Court.  He claims his full

pension.

THE LAW

Whereas certain of the facts alleged relate to a period prior to 3rd

September 1953, the date of the entry into force of the Convention with

respect to the Federal Republic of Germany; and whereas, in accordance

with the generally recognised rules of international law, the

Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent

to its entry into force with respect to that Party; whereas it follows

that the Application, insofar as it relates to these alleged facts,

must be rejected ratione temporis;

Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the Application, 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 Commission has frequently stated

that the constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the German

Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), for matters

within the competence of that Court, is a domestic remedy which in

principle falls within the scope of the provisions contained in Article

26 (Art. 26) (see Application No. 1086/61, Yearbook of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Volume 5, pages 148 [154];

Whereas the Applicant submits that he had no possibility to appeal to

the Federal Constitutional Court; whereas, however, under Article 90

of the Act on the Federal Constitutional Court (Gesetz

überBundesverfassungsgericht), everyone has the right to make a

constitutional appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court alleging a

violation by a public authority of one of the Basic Rights

(Grundrechte) or of one of the rights contained in Articles 33, 38,

101, 103 and 104 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz);

Whereas the Applicant, who failed to lodge a constitutional appeal, has

not shown that, under Article 90 of the Act on the Federal

Constitutional Court, such an appeal was not open to him; whereas,

therefore, he has not established that he has exhausted the domestic

remedies available to him under German law;

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

Federal Court "ignored and did not examine" his allegation that he had

been recognised by the competent German authorities as a victim of Nazi

persecution, it is to be observed that, in order to comply with the

provisions of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Applicant

must show not only that he has submitted the case to the competent

domestic courts, but also he has raised before the domestic courts

those same complaints which are the subject of his Application before

the Commission (see Application No. 617/59, Yearbook of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Volume 3, pages 370 [390]); and  whereas

it does not appear from his statements and from the documents submitted

by the Applicant that, in the proceedings before the Regional Court,

the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, he raised the issue of his

persecution under the Nazi regime, which is one of his complaints in

his present Application before the Commission; whereas it follows that

he has not shown that he has exhausted the domestic remedies available

to him under German law;

Whereas, in regard to his further complaint that the Federal Court

failed to examine his allegation that Dr. Adenauer was "liberated from

his debts" at the Applicant's expense, the Applicant similarly has not

shown that he has exhausted the domestic remedies by submitting his

claim against Dr. Adenauer to the competent German courts;

Whereas, even presuming that the Applicant has exhausted all domestic

remedies, 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 especially in Article 6 (Art. 6); whereas, in

particular, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the

Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of

the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention; whereas

proceedings before the domestic courts of the Contracting Parties

accordingly concern the Commission, during its examination of the

admissibility of an application, only insofar as they appear to involve

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively

listed in the Convention; and whereas there is no appearance of such

a violation in the proceedings complained of;

Whereas, in regard to the alleged partiality of the Federal Court, the

Commission, having examined the very detailed decision given by the

Court in the Applicant's case finds no reason to doubt the impartiality

of the Court; whereas, it appears from this decision that the

allegations made in the Applicant's further appeal (Revision) were each

carefully examined by the Federal Court and rejected on reasonable

grounds;

Whereas, in particular, in regard to the Applicant's complaints that

the Federal Court failed to examine the value of his claim against Dr.

Adenauer, and the "non-existing" claim of Dr. Adenauer against Y, it

appears from the decision of the Court that it did indeed deal with

these claims insofar as they had a bearing on the relations between the

Applicant and Y; whereas, contrary to the allegation of the Applicant,

it further appears from Part B III of the decision of the Federal Court

that it examined the value of the Applicant's claim against Y; whereas,

finally, the Applicant also complained before the Federal Court that

the Court of Appeal had refused to hear him and several other persons

as witnesses; whereas, however, it appears from Part B 1, 2 of the

decision of the Federal Court that the evidence thus offered by the

Applicant was either inappropriate or immaterial to the decision of his

case (see also Application No. 1092/61, concerning the right to be

heard as a witness in one's own case - Collection of Decisions of the

Commission, Volume 9, pages 37 - 39);

Whereas, it follows that the remainder of the Application 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.