AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 25435/94

                      by Hans-Volker and Gisela Helene PETERS

                      against Germany

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

20 February 1995, the following members being present:

           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 S. TRECHSEL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 G. RESS

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 19 May 1994 by

Hans-Volker and Gisela Helene Peters against Germany and registered on

17 October 1994 under file No. 25435/94;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

applicants, may be summarised as follows.

      The applicants, both German nationals, are a married couple.  The

first applicant, born in 1943, is a certified biologist.  The second

applicant, born in 1946, is a housewife.  They are residing in

Schwetzingen.

      The present application relates to several sets of proceedings.

I.    On 7 December 1981 the Heidelberg District Court (Amtsgericht)

dismissed the request of a third person, a patent attorney, to place

the first applicant under guardianship, as, according to a medical

expert opinion, he was only partly incapable of entering into legal

transactions, namely in respect of his scientific work and patents.

II.   On 30 August 1982 the Karlsruhe District Court, upon the request

of the Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft),

placed the second applicant under guardianship on account of her mental

illness.  The Court, referring to S. 645 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(Zivilprozeßordnung) and S. 6 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches

Gesetzbuch), found that the second applicant was suffering from a

schizophrenia of a paranoic nature to such an extent that she was not

capable of entering into legal transactions and had to be placed under

guardianship.  In this respect, the Court had regard to the written

expert opinion of a psychiatric expert, as amended at a hearing, and

the second applicant's statements at that hearing.

      In the beginning of 1984 the second applicant requested the

Schwetzingen District Court to terminate her placement under

guardianship.  It appears that this request remained unsuccessful.

III.  On 21 August 1984, in the context of provisional injunction

proceedings, the Schwetzingen District Court, referring to S. 1674 of

the Civil Code, found that the second applicant's right to custody over

the spouses' child, born on 2 August 1984, was suspended on account of

her placement under guardianship for mental illness.  The District

Court further provisionally withdrew the first applicant's right to

determine the child's place of residence and transferred it to the

local Youth Office.  The Court ordered that the child be handed over

to the Youth Office, whereby the bailiff was authorised, if need be,

to use physical force.  Having regard to a report of the local Youth

Office, the Court found that there was an imminent danger for the

child's well-being, necessitating the above decisions without having

previously heard the applicants.

      On 4 September 1984 the child was placed with foster parents.

      On 17 December 1984 the Schwetzingen District Court granted the

first applicant the right to visit his daughter once a fortnight in the

localities of the Youth Office.  On 11 April 1985 the District Court

dismissed the request of the Youth Office to reduce the first

applicant's right of access.  The right to visit the child was later

extended to the second applicant.

      On 23 October 1985, at a hearing before the District Court, the

second applicant, assisted by her guardian and in presence of the first

applicant, requested that the proceedings be suspended for one year.

The Court decided accordingly.

      On 11 October 1985 the Schwetzingen District Court amended its

decision of 21 August 1984 to the extent that the first applicant's

right to determine the child's place of residence had been withdrawn.

The Court ordered that the child be handed over to the first applicant.

Moreover, the Court suspended the proceedings regarding the final

decision on the right of custody for the period of one year.  The Court

also gave various instructions as regards the applicants' conduct

concerning their child.  The Court, having regard to medical expert

advice and to reports of the local Youth Office, considered that there

were reasons to assume that the applicants' conduct would expose the

child concerned to a danger as to her physical, mental and

psychological well-being.  However, there was also a hope that by more

lenient measures such a danger in the applicants' household could be

avoided.  The Court noted that the local Youth Office had so far failed

to offer help to the applicants in order to avoid that the child was

separated from the applicants.

      On 17 March 1986 the Mannheim Regional Court (Landgericht), upon

the respective appeals of the child's foster parents and the Youth

Office, quashed the decision of 11 October 1985 regarding the decision

that the child be handed back to the applicants.  The Regional Court,

referring to S. 1666 of the Civil Code, found that due to the second

applicant's mental illness the child could not be given back to the

parental household and be brought up in these surroundings.  The Court

noted that the seriousness of the second applicant's illness had been

confirmed by a psychiatric expert opinion of 1982, and that her

situation was, according to a report of 1985, only periodically

improving.  The Court also observed that the second applicant was again

staying at a psychiatric hospital.  The first applicant could not avert

this danger as he could not possibly control his wife and the child at

any given time.  Thus the question whether the first applicant was

himself capable of educating his daughter was irrelevant.  The more

lenient measures envisaged by the District Court appeared insufficient,

as they only consisted in a sporadic control.

      On 7 May 1986 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht)

declared the first applicant's further appeal inadmissible, as it had

not been lodged by counsel.  The second applicant's appeal was

dismissed.

      On 23 November 1988 the Schwetzingen District Court found that

both applicants' right to custody over their child was suspended on

account of their respective mental illness.  Having regard to the

applicants' conduct in the course of earlier visits, their right of

access to the child was withdrawn.

      S. 1666 of the German Civil Code provides in particular that, if

the physical, mental or psychological well-being of a child is

endangered as a consequence of an abuse of the right of custody, or

neglect of the child, or a failure of the parents arising through no

fault of their own or due to the conduct of a third person, and if the

parents are not willing or not able to avert the danger, the competent

guardianship court will order the measures necessary to avert the

danger concerned.

IV.   On 28 August 1990 the Weinheim District Court granted the child's

adoption by her foster parents.

      The District Court, referring to SS. 1741 - 1746 of the German

Civil Code, found that the conditions for adoption were met.  The Court

considered that the applicants, due to their mental health, were - on

a long-term basis - not capable of educating the child.  In this

respect the District Court had regard to psychiatric expert evidence,

in particular a psychiatric expert opinion of 1986 prepared in the

context of the above-mentioned proceedings before the Schwetzingen

District Court, and to the opinion of the Heidelberg Youth Office of

30 July 1990.  The Weinheim District Court found that this assessment

had been confirmed upon the hearing of the applicants who, in the

context of the adoption proceedings had refused to accept that they

were mentally ill.  The applicants had requested that their child be

soon given back to them, indicating that the second applicant had been

able to play with other children.  According to the District Court, the

applicants thereby overlooked that education of a child required more

than playing.  The child's adoption by her foster parents was,

therefore, the ideal solution, as growing up under the unhealthy

influence of the applicants would necessarily result in an unhealthy

development of the child.

      The District Court, referring to S. 1747 para. 4 of the Civil

Code, finally found that the applicants' consent to the adoption was

not necessary on the ground that they were permanently suffering from

serious mental illness and thus incapable of entering into legal

transactions and of giving their valid consent.

      S. 1741 of the Civil Code provides for the adoption of a child

if it serves the child's well-being and if it can be expected that a

parent-child relationship will develop between the child and the

adoptive parents.  The adoption requires the consent of the child; if

the child is not capable of entering into legal transactions or has not

attained the age of fourteen, the adoption requires the consent of his

or her guardian (S. 1746).  The consent of a parent who is permanently

incapable of making such a statement is not necessary (S. 1947).

According to S. 1752 the competent guardianship court decides upon the

request of the adoptive parents on the adoption.  S. 52e of the Code

on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Gesetz über die freiwillige

Gerichtsbarkeit) excludes an appeal against a court decision granting

adoption.  SS. 90 seq. of the Federal Constitutional Court Act

(Bundesverfassungs-gerichtsgesetz) provide for a constitutional

complaint (Verfassungs-beschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional

Court (Bundesverfassungs-gericht) regarding alleged violations of the

constitutional rights under the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which

include the right to respect for family life.

      The applicants were informed of the decision by letter of

10 September 1990.

      On 1 October 1990 the Mannheim Regional Court declared the first

applicant's appeal inadmissible on the ground that there was no appeal

against an adoption order.

      On 19 April 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to

admit the applicants' constitutional complaint, as it was lodged out

of time and as they had not filed all relevant court decisions.

V.    In 1986 and 1987 the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für

Arbeit) dismissed the first applicant's requests for a disability

pension on the ground that he did not fulfil the legal conditions

regarding the waiting periods.  His requests for financial support in

view of a professional training were dismissed on the ground that, as

shown by medical expert evidence, he was suffering from a schizophrenic

psychosis and was therefore permanently unfit for work.

      On 4 December 1987 the Mannheim Social Court (Sozialgericht)

dismissed the first applicant's action against the Federal Labour

Office.  His appeal was dismissed by the Baden Wurttemberg Labour Court

of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on 6 September 1988.

      The first applicant's repeated requests for a re-opening of the

proceedings were to no avail.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicants complain in particular about the adoption of their

child, and of the proceedings concerned.  In this context they also

state that in 1984 their child should not have been taken away from

them and placed with foster parents.  They further submit that

following various difficulties and the detrimental influence of

psychiatrists the first applicant cannot appropriately pursue his

scientific work, and is thus prevented from improving medicine to help

thousands of persons.  In this respect, they refer to the refusal of

payments by the Federal Labour Office, as confirmed by the German

Social Courts.  They invoke Articles 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

      The applicants complain about the decision of the Weinheim

District Court of August 1990 granting the adoption of their child by

the foster parents, and apparently also about the previous decision of

the Schwetzingen District Court of August 1984 to withdraw the first

applicant's right of custody over the child and to suspend the second

applicant's right of custody.  The first applicant also complains about

the refusal of payments by the Federal Labour Office, as confirmed by

German social courts in 1987 and 1988.

      The Commission recalls that it is not competent to decide whether

or not the facts alleged by the applicants disclose any appearance of

a violation of the Convention, as Article 26 (Art. 26) provides that

the "Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic

remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised

rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the

date on which the final decision was taken".

      The Commission recalls that the six months' rule, in reflecting

the wish of the High Contracting parties to prevent the examination of

past events after an indefinite lapse of time, serves the interest of

legal certainty.  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision

carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both

individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such

supervision is no longer possible (cf. No. 9587/81, Dec. 13.12.82,

D.R. 29 p. 228; No. 10416/83, Dec. 17.5.84, D.R. 38 p. 158; No.

9833/82, Dec. 7.3.85, D.R. 42 p. 53; No. 15213/89, Dec. 1.7.91, D.R. 71

p. 230; see also Eur. Court H.R., De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment

of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 30, para. 54).

      In the present case, the Commission notes that the decision to

withdraw the first applicant's right to determine the child's place of

residence and to suspend the second applicant's right of custody was

taken in August 1984 and the proceedings concerned terminated in 1986.

The final decision on the adoption was taken by the Weinheim District

Court in August 1990 and served in September 1990, the decision of the

Federal Constitutional Court of 1994 on the applicants' constitutional

complaint cannot be regarded as the final decision for the purposes of

Article 26 (Art. 26), as the complaint was rejected as having been

lodged out of time.  The social court proceedings terminated in 1988.

      The Commission finds that, since the application was introduced

to the Commission on 19 May 1994, it has been presented more than six

months after the dates of the final decisions in the respective sets

of proceedings.

      The Commission has further considered whether there were special

circumstances to the effect that the six months' period under

Article 26(Art. 26) cannot be held against the applicants.

      In view of the purposes of the six months' rule, such

circumstances must be based on clear and conclusive evidence (cf.

No. 10416/83, loc. cit.; No. 9833/82, loc. cit.).

      The Commission notes that according to the German court decisions

the first applicant, though a request in 1981 to place him under

guardianship was refused, is suffering at least partly from a mental

illness, and the second applicant was placed under guardianship on

account of her mental illness in 1982.

      However, the Commission considers that the state of mental health

of both applicants did not prevent them from addressing themselves to

the Commission within the time-limit under Article 26 (Art. 27), even

having regard to the fact that their submissions reveal some confusion.

In reaching this conclusion the Commission took into account that in

1984 the second applicant initiated court proceedings to have the court

decision placing her under guardianship set aside.  Moreover, the

applicants initiated  appeal proceedings against the Schwetzingen

District Court decision of August 1984.  They also lodged an appeal

against the adoption order in 1990.  Furthermore, the first applicant

conducted social court proceedings between 1986 and 1988, and made

repeated, though unsuccessful requests for their re-opening.  Moreover,

there is no indication that, as compared to the preceding years, the

applicants' state had changed at the time when they filed their

application with the Commission.

      The ignorance of applicants about the Convention does not

constitute a circumstance justifying the interruption of the running

of the six months' period (No. 512/59, Collection 1).

      Accordingly, an examination of the case does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or

suspended the running of the six months' period.

      It follows that the application has been introduced out of time

and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

     (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)