AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14968/89

                      by I.H.

                      against Austria

      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 7 July 1992, the following members being present:

             MM.  S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H. G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

             Mrs. G. H. THUNE

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  L. LOUCAIDES

                  J.-C. GEUS

             Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 28 January 1985

by I.H. against Austria and registered on 4 May 1989 under file No.

14968/89;

      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

      In so far as it can be determined from the applicant's

submissions, the facts of the case may be summarised as follows;

      The applicant, a Hungarian refugee born in 1944, currently

resides in Vienna.  He previously filed Application No. 10533/83 (see

below PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION).

The applicant's guardianship

      According to the facts at issue in Application No. 10533/83, the

District Court of Vienna City (Bezirksgericht Wien - Innere Stadt),

after having heard psychiatric expert evidence, decided on 23 December

1975 to declare the applicant as lacking legal capacity and appointed

a guardian (Beistand) for him.  In 1983 the Court appointed another

guardian.  On 19 July 1984 the Court decided that as from 1 July 1984

onwards the applicant had an equivalent position to a person for whom

a curator had been appointed to take care of all matters according to

Section 273 para. 3 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines

Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).  Thus, the guardian had to ensure the

necessary medical and social care for the applicant, unless the court

ordered otherwise.

      As regards the period thereafter, it transpires from a decision

of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) of 27 September

1986 (see below) that the applicant's representative was duly informed

of the decision of 19 July 1984, and that the District Court also

informed the applicant thereof.

     On 24 October 1984, and subsequently on frequent occasions, the

applicant requested the Vienna City District Court to lift the

guardianship.  On 5 July 1985 the applicant unsuccessfully requested

the Public Prosecutor's Office to institute criminal proceedings

against the guardian.

      On 27 November 1985 the Vienna City District Court dismissed the

applicant's request to lift the guardianship.  The Court noted inter

alia that the applicant had introduced a large number of proceedings

before various Vienna courts and that the statements to the Court

itself contained many insults.  The Court considered that the applicant

had not changed his inclination, previously determined in an expert

opinion, to verbal aggressions.  It further observed that in the

pending proceedings the applicant had not appeared on the dates on

which the Court had summoned him, and that he had given no reason

herefor.  The Court concluded that the applicant continued to suffer

from a mental illness (psychische Krankheit) which prevented him from

duly taking care of his own matters and that he therefore required the

assistance of a guardian.

      On 27 September 1986 the Constitutional Court rejected the

applicant's challenge of the Amendment of the Federal Guardianship Act.

The Court found inter alia that the applicant should first have

appealed against the decision of the Vienna District Court of 19 July

1984, and that the appeal court could then have challenged the Act

before the Constitutional Court.

      On 6 October 1986 the Vienna City District Court determined the

amount (Belohnung) to be paid to the guardian for the period from

6 July 1984 to 30 June 1985.  The guardian was requested to submit his

next report at the latest on 1 January 1987.

      On 26 December 1986 the applicant requested the Ministry of

Justice to lift the guardianship.  On 22 March 1987 he introduced a

disciplinary complaint against the guardian and the Vienna City

District Court judge concerned.

      The applicant's request to lift the guardianship was dismissed

by the Vienna City District Court on 24 March 1987.  The Court, which

relied on Section 273 of the Civil Code, noted inter alia that, upon

the applicant's release from detention, he refused to cooperate with

the guardian in order to obtain social assistance.  Moreover, in so far

as the applicant had submitted statements of friends and doctors

concerning his person, the Court found that the applicant had asked

these persons to reiterate a statement which he had himself prepared.

One doctor expressing an opinion on the applicant had never actually

treated him.  The Court also noted the statement of another private

expert who explained that the applicant was suffering from a severe

psychiatric disorder (schwere seelische Störung).  On the whole the

Court concluded that the applicant continued to require assistance as

he was unable himself to deal with important matters.  The Court also

noted that the applicant had failed to comply with the summons to

appear before court.

      It appears that the applicant's further appeal was eventually

dismissed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 26 November

1987, though the case was referred back to the District Court for

further decision whether the guardianship should be lifted.

      On 11 January 1988 the guardian submitted a report, numbering

seven pages, to the District Court concerning the guardianship period

from 1 July 1985 to 15 July 1987.  The Report included a statement on

the social assistance monies received in the applicant's name.

      On 11 July 1988 the Vienna City District Court approved the

guardian's report for the period 16 July 1987 - 31 December 1987.

      On 24 January 1990 the applicant introduced, apparently without

success, a criminal action against the guardian and a judge of the

Vienna Regional Court.

Administration of the applicant's monies

      The applicant's guardian was called upon to administer the

applicant's monies.

      In this context the applicant has submitted a letter of the

guardian of 24 April 1985 according to which the psychiatric hospital,

in which the applicant had been detained, transferred to the guardian

the sum of 6,000 AS, constituting reimbursement for vocational therapy

(Arbeitsgeld).  The guardian stated in the letter that the monies which

he received in the applicant's name were used (herangezogen) to pay the

enormous costs for the applicant's many statements to the various

authorities.

      The applicant has also submitted a letter of the Vienna City

Council (Magistrat) of 25 February 1986 concerning a telephone

conversation with the guardian.  According to this note the applicant

received social assistance which was paid to his guardian.  However,

the guardian held the monies back pending a court decision.

      According to a letter of 18 December 1987 of a social adviser of

the Vienna "Caritas" to the applicant, he could fetch the social

assistance directly from the guardian, or inform the latter of an

address to which the assistance could be sent (Zustelladresse).

      It appears that in respect of the applicant's flat at S.-Street

(see below) the guardian was called upon to pay the rent.  However, the

applicant himself also deposited monies for rent at the Donaustadt

District Court.  Upon appeal, the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht)

found on 27 June 1988 that the applicant, who was under guardianship,

could not deposit monies without the consent of the guardian.

Proceedings against the guardianship judge

      In the guardianship proceedings at issue the applicant frequently

challenged judge L. at the Vienna City District Court whom he regarded

as an accomplice of the guardian.

      It appears that one such challenge filed by the applicant was

dismissed by the Vienna City District Court on 13 November 1985 and,

upon appeal, by the Vienna Regional Court on 20 February 1986.  His

subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was declared inadmissible on 15

May 1986 as such an appeal was not possible.  It appears that a further

challenge was again dismissed by the District Court on 22 June 1987

and, upon appeal, by the Regional Court on 21 July 1987.  On 15

September 1987 the Supreme Court again declared the applicant's further

appeal inadmissible.

      In 1988 the applicant requested judge L. to suspend certain

guardianship proceedings, the nature of which the applicant has not

explained before the Commission, until it had been decided to institute

criminal proceedings against a judge, apparently L. himself.  This

request was rejected by the Vienna City District Court on 29 July 1988,

the decision being signed by judge L.  The decision stated that

suspension of such proceedings was not possible, and that if need be

the judge would himself announce his bias to the competent organs of

justice.  The decision further stated that the applicant had eight days

time to inform the District Court to which other court, falling under

the jurisdiction of the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), he

wished the proceedings to be transferred; if the applicant did not do

so within the time-limit, the District Court itself would effect such

a transfer.

Driving licence proceedings

      On 21 June 1978 the Federal Police Direction (Bundespolizei-

direktion) withdrew the applicant's driving licence on account of the

state of his health.  This order was served on the applicant's guardian

on 26 July 1978.

      On 2 May 1985 the order was served on Mr. V., one of the

applicant's lawyers whom the applicant, but not his guardian, had

authorised with a power of attorney.  The applicant, represented by his

lawyer, apparently filed an objection against this order which was

rejected by the administrative authority on 11 November 1985 as being

filed belatedly.  The applicant then filed an appeal with the

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) in which he applied for

legal aid.  On 25 November 1985 the Court informed the applicant that

within one week he had to supplement the declaration of means

(Vermögensbekenntnis) already submitted;  if the applicant did not

comply with these conditions his request would not be granted.

      Between 1986 and 1988 the applicant's lawyer filed further

requests and appeals to reopen the proceedings in which the driving

licence had been withdrawn.  These requests remained unsuccessful as

the applicant's guardian did not give his consent thereto.  The

applicant's lawyer was eventually fined for abusively filing

applications.

Proceedings concerning deposition of savings bank books

      On 24 June 1985 the applicant introduced an action against G.H.,

in which he requested receipt of certain confirmations of savings bank

books (Sparbücher) deposited with a bank.  The applicant also requested

legal aid.  With regard to the latter the applicant was asked to

provide further documents as well as proof that his guardian had

consented thereto.  As the applicant apparently did not comply with

these conditions, the Vienna Regional Court rejected the action on 1

August 1985.  The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of

Appeal on 15 October 1985.  The applicant's further appeal  was

dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10 December 1985.

      Subsequently, the applicant filed a new action against G.H.,

again claiming receipt of apparently the same confirmations of savings

bank books.  The action was rejected, upon appeal, by the Vienna Court

of Appeal as the guardian had not consented thereto.  The applicant's

further appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22 April 1986.

Lawyer's remark in applicant's divorce proceedings

      The applicant was involved in divorce proceedings against his

wife.  On 6 May 1985 a hearing took place before a court not specified

by the applicant in which the lawyer of the applicant's wife claimed

that the applicant was querulous.  The applicant then introduced a

complaint against the lawyer to the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna

Bar (Disziplinarrat der Rechtsanwaltskammer).  The complaint was

dismissed by the Council on 11 December 1985.  The applicant appealed

against this decision and also challenged all the members of the

Council.  Appeal and challenge were dismissed by the Supreme Appeal and

Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (Oberste Berufungs- und

Disziplinarkommission für Rechtsanwälte) on 18 May 1987.

Criminal complaint against doctors and nurses

      The applicant was detained in hospital from 1979 to 1984

(cf. Application No. 10533/83).

      On 2 January 1986 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to

institute criminal proceedings against 20 doctors and various nurses,

claiming that he was still suffering from their ill-treatment.

Sickness certificates

      In 1985 the applicant sought to visit a doctor.  He requested the

Social Office (Sozialamt) accordingly to provide him with sickness

certificates (Krankenscheine).  Apparently he received no reply.  The

applicant filed frequent further requests and also attempted to

institute criminal proceedings against the Social Office.  By letter

of 25 February 1986 the Social Office informed the applicant that the

sickness certificates had been sent to the guardian who in fact had

transmitted them to the applicant's current serving address

(Zustelladresse).

      Subsequently, the applicant filed various further requests for

illness certificates.  These were apparently sent to his guardian.

Burglary of the applicant's flat at A.-Street

      On 8 June 1986 the applicant noted that there had been a burglary

of his flat at A.-Street and that certain possessions, namely

documents, had been robbed.  On 9 June 1986, when attempting to file

a criminal report with the police, he was told that instead he could

file a civil complaint about disturbance of possession

(Besitzstörungsklage).

First set of disturbance proceedings concerning the applicant's flat

at S.-Street

      Until 1988 the applicant rented a flat at S.-Street which at one

stage he shared with three sub-tenants.  It further appears that

various proceedings were pending introduced by the owner of the flat

at S.-Street who attempted to terminate the rent contract and to vacate

the applicant's flat.

      In autumn 1987 the applicant's guardian granted the owner and

other persons access to the flat in order to exchange windows.

According to Section 8 of the Austrian Rent Act, the tenant must grant

such access to the owner if it concerns improvements of the flat.

However, the guardian apparently could not let the owner into the flat

as he could not unlock the door.  On 18 November 1987 the door was

opened with the help of a locksmith.  All windows were changed except

in the applicant's room which was too crowded.  New keys were given to

the guardian who passed them on to a lawyer representing the applicant.

      The applicant filed complaints about disturbance of possessions

against the guardian, the owner and the locksmith.  The complaints

against the owner and the locksmith were refused as the guardian did

not consent thereto.  In respect of the complaints against the guardian

the Vienna City District Court requested an improvement of the

statement (Verbesserungsauftrag) as certain conditions had not been

met; thus, the applicant had not sufficiently explained why he was

filing a complaint against the guardian;  the Court also noted that in

such proceedings a special curator (Kollisionskurator) would have to

be appointed to consent to the complaint.  By decision of 29 January

1988 the Court rejected the complaint finding that its deficiencies

could not be healed in view of the applicant's lack of co-operation.

The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Court on

28 June 1988.

Settlement in respect of the applicant's flat at S.-Street

      On 26 February 1988 the guardian again granted the owner of the

applicant's flat at S.-Street access to the flat in order to change the

last window.  Upon attempting entrance into the flat it was noticed

that the lock had been ruined; a locksmith was again employed.

      The guardian then wrote a letter to the applicant on 29 February

1988 in which he explained the events.  The applicant was told that he

could fetch the new keys from the guardian until 18 March 1988.  If the

applicant failed to do so, the guardian would take this as a further

indication that the applicant did not need the flat.  In the guardian's

opinion, there was no reason to maintain the rent, which implied costs

for the applicant, if he did not use the flat.  In so far as it can be

determined the applicant did not react to this letter.

      On 28 April 1988 the guardian and the owner of the flat reached

a settlement before the Donaustadt District Court concerning the

termination of the rent contract and the vacation of the applicant's

flat.  This settlement was confirmed by the Vienna City District Court

on 23 June 1988.

      The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the

District Court in respect of which the Vienna Regional Court on

10 August 1988 invited the applicant to make certain improvements

within a time-limit of 14 days.  As the improvements were not made, the

Regional Court dismissed the appeal as being out of time.  The

applicant's request for reinstitution into the time-limit was dismissed

by the Regional Court.  The applicant then filed further appeals which

the Supreme Court dismissed on 6 April 1989 as being out of time.

Further disturbance proceedings against sub-tenants of the applicant's

flat at S.-Street

      On 6 November 1986 the applicant noted that the lock of the main

door to the flat had been changed.  He had the lock opened by a lock-

smith, whereupon he noticed that the lock to his room had been broken

up.  As from 12 November 1986 onwards he filed various complaints about

disturbance of possessions and requests for injunctions against the

sub-tenants and the owner of the flat.  Eventually, the complaints were

rejected by the Donaustadt District Court on 18 December 1987 and, upon

appeal, by the Vienna Regional Court on 19 December 1988.

      The applicant introduced other disturbance proceedings inter alia

against the sub-tenants on 29 December 1986.

      A hearing was held on 15 June 1989.  At the hearing the applicant

claimed that he had so far not heard of the settlement reached between

the applicant's guardian and the owner of the flat (see above).  Also

at the hearing the guardian withdrew his consent previously granted to

the applicant to conduct the disturbance proceedings.

      On 31 July 1989 the Donaustadt District Court terminated these

proceedings in view of the settlement reached.

Proceedings against K.K.

      It appears that the applicant filed an action against a certain

K.K. for the recovery of 18,000 AS.  On 11 February 1988 the Hernals

District Court dismissed the action as the applicant's guardian had

declined to consent thereto.

Prohibition of residence in Austria

      The Vienna Regional Court sentenced the applicant on 9 November

1972 to two years' imprisonment inter alia for committing acts of

physical aggression against his wife and clients (cf. Application

No. 10533/83).

      The present case relates to the additional punishment, imposed

on the applicant in that judgment, of a banishment from Austria

(Landesverweisung).

      In 1989 the applicant filed various requests to the Aliens'

Police (Fremdenpolizei) to lift this prohibition.  By decision of

28 May 1990 the Aliens' Police rejected the request.  It noted that the

applicant had so far not served the entire punishment causing the

prohibition.  The applicant was also without means.

      It appears that the applicant subsequently filed a complaint

against this decision with the Administrative Court in respect of which

he requested legal aid.

Passport proceedings

      On 12 March 1986 a passport was issued for the applicant, valid

for one year, which he at first did not fetch.

      Subsequently, however, the applicant apparently did receive a

passport.  On 29 June 1989 he filed a request for its prolongation.

On 19 February 1990 he complained that the prolongation had not yet

been issued.  The applicant subsequently filed complaints with the

Ministry of the Interior.

Correspondence

      In 1987 the Austrian postal services did not serve various

letters on the applicant as he did not possess a valid document to

prove his identity.

      In September 1987 the applicant allegedly sent a letter without

a stamp to the Commission, but also without his own address on the

envelope.  The letter was returned to his address.  The photocopy

submitted by the applicant of the front page of the envelope shows a

postmark of 21 September 1987.

Occurrences at a police station on 9 June 1986

      In the context of the burglary of the applicant's flat at

A.-Street, the applicant went to the police station on 9 June 1986 to

file a criminal report (see above).  The applicant then went with the

police to inspect the flat and was told by the police that he should

file a civil complaint about disturbance of possession.

      He states that, when he nevertheless urged the police to

investigate the matter, the latter asked him to prove his identity.

As he could not do so, the police took him back to the police station

at about noon. It appears that the applicant was further questioned at

the police station until 15h00.

      The applicant thereupon filed a complaint with the Austrian

Constitutional Court about illegal detention and requested legal aid.

On 1 December 1986 the Court dismissed the request for legal aid as the

applicant's guardian had failed to consent to the proceedings at issue.

Occurrences at a police office on 11 July 1989

      The applicant was asked to give evidence as a witness in criminal

proceedings against another person.  For this purpose he went to the

Economic Police (Wirtschaftspolizei) on 11 July 1989.  When he wanted

to leave, he was told he could not do so as he was sought in order to

establish his whereabouts (zur Aufenthaltsermittlung ausgeschrieben).

The search warrant had apparently been issued by an investigating

judge. The applicant apparently left the police office a few hours

later, though he has not stated the precise time.  Before leaving the

office he was asked to sign a statement according to which he would

report as soon as possible to the investigating judge issuing the

search warrant.  The applicant has not submitted a copy of the

statement.

      The applicant then filed a criminal complaint against the

investigating judge which apparently remained unsuccessful; he

apparently also filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

Occurrences at a police station on 12 October 1990

      On 12 October 1990, when attempting to cross the border from

Austria to the Czechoslovakia at about 12h00, the applicant was stopped

by the Austrian customs.  At about 14h30 two police officers brought

him to the Hainburg police station where he was informed of the two

reasons for his arrest.  One reason was apparently that he was

suspected of having participated in a bank robbery; in respect of this

ground the applicant pointed out that the matter had long been

resolved.  A second reason was that the applicant was sought in order

to establish his whereabouts (Aufenthaltsermittlung).

      At 16h45 the applicant was released after having signed a

statement according to which he would report as soon as possible to the

authority looking for him.  According to the statement signed, a court

was looking for the applicant in order to establish his whereabouts.

      The applicant then filed a criminal complaint against the Federal

Police Direction which apparently remained unsuccessful;  he apparently

also filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.

Occurrences at a police station on 14 March 1991

      The applicant claims that on 14 March 1991 at 18h30 he was

arrested and detained at a police station until 24h00.  He claims that

the police thereby told him that he was neither arrested nor was he

free to leave.  The police apparently questioned the applicant as to

the legality of his residence in Austria.  A further reason was

apparently that the applicant was sought in order to be served an order

stating that criminal proceedings instituted against him had been

terminated.

      The applicant apparently filed an appeal with the Constitutional

Court.

Guardian's letter to a company

      The applicant was involved in a company dealing with satellite

antennae.  On 18 February 1991 the applicant's guardian sent a copy of

the District Court's decision concerning the establishment of

guardianship of 19 July 1984 to a lawyer of the company.  The company

sent copies of this decision together with the applicant's photograph

to different trade partners and to the applicant's lawyer.

Paternity proceedings

      On 2 November 1990 the applicant requested the Donaustadt

District Court to acknowledge paternity of his son Ch.  On 19 February

1991 the Court declined jurisdiction, finding that the Vienna City

District Court was competent.  The applicant's appeal against this

decision was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Court on 12 September

1991.  The Court found in particular that the District Court's decision

had been lawful; it further noted that it would be simpler for the

applicant to apply for acknowledgment of paternity at the Registrar's

Office (Geburtsstandesamt).

COMPLAINTS

      Under Articles 1 - 10, 12 - 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention as

well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol

No. 4 the applicant raises the following complaints:

1.    As regards the guardianship the applicant complains that in his

case a guardian was in fact never appointed with legal force.  He

further complains of the refusal of the Austrian authorities to lift

the guardianship.  He also complains that in the proceedings concerning

his guardianship he was not heard.  The applicant finally complains

that various other requests and appeals were refused.

2.    The applicant complains that the guardian enriched himself when

administering the applicant's monies.  The applicant further complains

that the social security monies are not directly paid out to him.

3.    The applicant complains about the bias of judge L. of the Vienna

City District Court claiming that L. acted as an accomplice to the

guardian, supervised him incorrectly, and decided against the

applicant's interests.  He also complains that judge L. acted in the

proceedings leading to a settlement between the owner of the

applicant's flat at S.-Street and the guardian.

4.    The applicant complains about the proceedings concerning

withdrawal of his driving licence and that the lawyer was fined for

abusively filing applications.

5.    In respect of the different proceedings concerning the deposition

of savings bank books the applicant complains that he was not granted

legal aid, and that he could not file the action without the consent

of his guardian.  He also complains of the various judges concerned.

6.    The applicant further complains of the outcome of the proceedings

which he attempted to institute on account of the lawyer's remark in

his divorce proceedings, in particular that he could not file the

complaint without the consent of his guardian.

7.    The applicant's unsuccessful criminal complaint against doctors

and nurses is the object of a further complaint.

8.    The applicant also complains of inhuman and degrading treatment

in that he was not issued sickness certificates despite his bad

physical health.

9.    The applicant complains of the burglary of his flat at A.-Street

and that he could not introduce a criminal complaint (Strafanzeige)

about this.

10.   The applicant also complains about the unlawfulness, and the

length, of the disturbance proceedings concerning his flat, and their

outcome, stating that the settlement reached was against his interest.

He appears to complain that he was not served the settlement before the

hearing of 15 June 1989.  The applicant also complains that his

property was robbed.

11.   Various complaints are raised against the sub-tenants at

S.-Street, inter alia that the applicant could not use his flat, as his

lock had been changed, from 6 November 1986 onwards.  He submits that

the courts concerned did not deal with his various complaints about the

disturbance of possessions in adequate time.

12.   The applicant complains that his action against K.K. was

dismissed as his guardian had declined to consent thereto.

13.   The applicant complains that in view of his prohibition of

residence in Austria he cannot obtain permission to work, that the

possibilities of social assistance are restricted, and that he has to

earn his living by unlawful means.  He may also be understood as

complaining of unfairness of the proceedings concerned.

14.   The applicant further complains that he was not provided with a

passport.

15.   The applicant complains of an interference with his corres-

pondence in that the authorities did not serve various letters on him

as he could not prove his identity.  The applicant also complains that

his mail was opened by the authorities: thus, a letter which he sent

without a stamp to the Commission, but also without his own address on

the envelope, was returned to his address.

16.   The applicant complains about unlawful detention by the police

on 9 June 1986, 11 July 1989, 12 October 1990 and 14 March 1991.

17.   The applicant complains about the guardian's letter to a company

of 18 February 1991, apparently as causing prejudice to his business

interests.

18.   The applicant complains that the authorities refuse to

acknowledge his paternity of his son.

19.   Finally, the applicant submits documents concerning other

unspecified proceedings in respect of which he also appears to raise

complaints.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Application No. 10533/83

      On 27 November 1978 the applicant introduced an application with

the Commission which was registered on 22 August 1983 under

No. 10533/83.  In his application he complained inter alia under

Articles 2 - 6,  8 - 10, and 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2

of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of deprivation of

liberty, conditions of detention, interference with his correspondence,

and lack of access to court and of effective remedies in the domestic

proceedings.

      By partial decision of 10 March 1988 the Commission declared

inadmissible parts of the application.  On 4 October 1989 the

Commission declared admissible certain complaints of the applicant and

declared inadmissible the remainder of the application. With regard to

the complaints declared admissible, the Commission on 1 March 1991

adopted its Report under Article 31 of the Convention.  The case is at

present pending before the Court.

      Application No. 10533/83 concerned circumstances up to the

applicant's release from detention in a psychiatric hospital on

14 November 1984.

The present application

      The applicant's first communication to the Commission after this

date relating to a new application was on 28 January 1985.

      The present application was registered on 4 May 1989.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains under various provisions of the

Convention and its Protocols about proceedings and their outcome.

Date of introduction

2.    The Commission observes that the applicant regularly corresponds

with the Secretariat and that in his various submissions he frequently

raises new complaints or expands on previous ones.  The Commission

further notes that Application No. 10533/83 related to circumstances

up to the applicant's release from detention on remand on 14 November

1984 (see Dec. 4.10.89).  The applicant's first communication to the

Commission after this date relating to a new application was on

28 January 1985.  The Commission therefore considers that on this date

the applicant introduced his present application.

Complaint which is substantially the same as the previous application

3.    The applicant complains that in his case a guardian was never

appointed with legal force.  However, the Commission notes that this

complaint relates back to proceedings leading to the decision of the

District Court of Vienna City of 23 December 1975, and that the

applicant already complained of these proceedings before the Commission

in Application No. 10533/83.  Thus, the present complaint is

essentially the same as that raised in Application No. 10533/83, and

this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27

para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

As to the compatibility of the complaints with the Convention

4.    In so far as the applicant may be understood as introducing

complaints against private persons, for instance the sub-tenants at his

flat in S.-Street, the Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1

(Art. 25-1) of the Convention it may only receive applications in which

the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of

the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party

has recognised this competence of the Commission.  The Commission may

not, therefore, receive applications directed against private

individuals, and this part of the application is incompatible ratione

personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.    In so far as the applicant complains that he could not introduce

a criminal complaint about the burglary of his flat at A.-Street,

against certain doctors, or against the Social Office, the Commission

considers that the right to introduce criminal proceedings against

third persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Convention.

      The applicant also complains of his prohibition of residence in

Austria, leading to financial difficulties, and that he was not

provided with a passport.  He also complains that the Social Office did

not issue an illness certificate.  However, the Commission considers

that the right of an alien to reside in a particular country, or to

obtain a passport therefrom, is not as such guaranteed by the

Convention.  Furthermore, there is no right as such under the

Convention to social security assistance.

      In so far as the applicant may be understood as complaining under

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention about the proceedings concerning

the prohibition of residence in Austria, the Commission notes that such

proceedings do not concern "the determination of a person's civil

rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him" within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  In so

far as the applicant complains about the fine which was imposed on his

lawyer for abusively filing applications, as resulting in unfair

proceedings, the Commission notes that the fine was issued in

proceedings concerning the withdrawal of the applicant's driving

licence; however, such proceedings also do not fall to be considered

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies

6.    The applicant complains about detention by the police on 9 June

1986, 11 July 1989, 12 October 1990 and 14 March 1991.

      According to Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention,

everyone has the right to liberty and security of person and no one

shall be deprived of his liberty save in the cases set out in subparas.

1 (a) -(e) and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

      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.

      In respect of his alleged detention on 11 July 1989, 12 October

1990 and 14 March 1991 the applicant has not shown that he filed an

appeal with the Constitutional Court.  In this respect he has not

therefore complied with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention.

      Furthermore, the applicant's appeal to the Constitutional Court

complaining of detention on 9 June 1986 was refused as the applicant

failed to obtain the consent of his guardian for filing the appeal.

However, domestic remedies have not been exhausted where a domestic

remedy is not admitted because of a procedural omission or mistake (see

No. 17878/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 79).

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

Complaints examined under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention

7.    The applicant may be understood as complaining about a lack of

access to court within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention.

a)    Thus, the applicant complains that his guardian must give his

consent to legal action which the applicant intends to take.  The

Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      The Commission recalls its decision in Application No. 10533/83

(Dec. 4.10.89) that it was one of the main purposes of the measures

taken against the applicant to prevent vexatious litigation.  This

interference may raise an issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention in so far as his access to court was impeded with regard

to proceedings which determined his "civil rights and obligations"

within the meaning of this provision.

      Nevertheless, according to the Convention organs' case-law,

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not debar States from making

regulations, in the interests of the good administration of justice,

concerning the access to courts (see No. 6916/75, Dec. 8.10.76, D.R. 6

p. 107).

      The Commission considers that it is a normal practice in many

Convention States that a person of unsound mind may be found lacking

legal capacity to act in court, and that in such cases a guardian may

be appointed for him and required to give consent to any legal action

which this person may intend to take.  In the Commission's view this

is compatible with the aim and purpose of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

of the Convention.

b)    The applicant also complains that he was unjustifiably denied

legal aid, for instance in the proceedings concerning the savings bank

books.  However, the Commission considers that Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) also does not debar States, in the interests of the good

administration of justice, from attaching certain conditions to the

granting of legal aid, for instance the submission of sufficient

information in order to establish the indigence of the person

concerned.

c)    The Commission finds no indication of a violation of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the complaints under

a) and b) above and rejects this part of the application as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

8.    Also under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the

applicant may be understood as complaining about further guardianship

proceedings.

a)    In this respect the Commission recalls its decision in

Application No. 10533/83 (Dec. 4.10.89) according to which the

performance by the guardian of his duties concerns the "civil rights"

of the person placed under guardianship and that a court procedure is

therefore necessary if a serious and genuine dispute arises between the

person concerned and the guardian.

b)    In the present case the Commission considers that the guardian's

activities were under the constant supervision of the competent

guardianship court, as provided for by Austrian law.  It appears in

particular that the guardianship court examined and then approved the

reports submitted by the guardian.

c)    In so far as the applicant complains about bias of judge L., the

Commission considers that the applicant, who claims that the judge

constantly decides against his interests, has not sufficiently

substantiated this complaint.  In any event it appears from the

decision of the District Court of 29 July 1988 that the applicant was

free to request transfer of the case to another guardianship court.

d)    The applicant complains that in the proceedings concerning his

guardianship he was not heard.  However, the Commission notes on the

one hand the decisions of the District Court of 27 November 1985 and

24 March 1987 according to which it had summoned the applicant to the

court, though he had not appeared, and had not given any reasons

therefor.  On the other hand, the Commission notes that the applicant

filed various submissions with the District Court, consisting of

statements of friends and doctors, inter alia a private expert opinion

concerning the applicant, which the Court in its decision of 24 March

1987 carefully considered and assessed.

e)    On the whole there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings in

question were not conducted in conformity with Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  It follows that this part of the

application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

9.    The applicant complains about other proceedings in which he has

been involved and their outcome.

      With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant

complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19

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

of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.  In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention.  The Commission refers, on this point, to its established

case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236;

No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec.

13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

      It is true that the applicant also raises complaints about the

length and the fairness of certain proceedings which the Commission has

examined under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

a)    Thus, the applicant complains about the length of various

proceedings, in particular concerning the different complaints about

disturbance of possessions which he introduced against the sub-tenants

of the flat at S.-Street, as well as the complaint filed against the

settlement reached between the guardian and the owner of the flat which

the applicant had rented.

      Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, "in the

determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is

entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by (a) ...

tribunal".

      According to the Convention organs' case law, the reasonableness

of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the

particular circumstances of the case.  In this instance the

circumstances call for an overall assessment (see Eur. Court H.R.,

Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 72).

      In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant

introduced his complaints about the disturbance of possessions in one

case from 12 November 1986 onwards.  The complaints were rejected by

the Donaustadt District Court on 18 December 1987 and, upon appeal, by

the Vienna Regional Court on 19 December 1988.  In view of the fact

that the proceedings were conducted before two different courts, the

Commission finds that the overall lapse of time of approximately

twenty-five months can still be considered reasonable within the

meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      The other complaint concerning disturbance of possessions was

introduced on 29 December 1986 and resulted in a decision of the

Donaustadt District Court of 31 July 1989.  Bearing in mind that in

these proceedings the court awaited the outcome of settlement

negotiations between the guardian and the owner of the flat, the

Commission does not consider that the period of approximately 31 months

exceeds the notion of a reasonable time within the meaning of Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      Finally, the proceedings introduced by the applicant after

23 June 1988 against the settlement reached between the guardian and

the owner of the flat resulted in a decision of the Supreme Court on

6 April 1989.  The period of approximately 10 months can also be

considered reasonable within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

b)    The applicant further complains that he was not informed of the

settlement reached between his guardian and the owner of his flat until

at the hearing of 15 June 1989.

      The Commission observes at the outset that the applicant must

have been aware of the probability that his rent contract would be

terminated: thus, proceedings were pending against him concerning

termination of the rent; moreover, he failed to cooperate with his

guardian, for instance by not replying to his guardian's letter of

29 February 1988.

      The Commission moreover notes that after the settlement had been

confirmed by the District Court on 23 June 1988, the applicant filed

an appeal in respect of which the Vienna Regional Court on 10 August

1988 asked the applicant to make certain improvements.  Thus, the

applicant was aware of the settlement long before 15 June 1989, and in

this respect his complaint is therefore insufficiently substantiated.

c)    This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

Complaints examined under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

10.   The applicant has raised complaints about the guardianship and

about the manner in which the guardian performs his duties, for

instance with regard to the administration of the applicant's monies,

the circumstances surrounding his flat at S.-Street, and the letter

which the guardian sent to the company on 18 February 1991.

a)    The Commission considers that the continuation of the applicant's

guardianship concerns his right to respect for private life within the

meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

      The Commission recalls that the complaint about the institution

of the guardianship was already examined in Application No. 10533/83.

The authorities' subsequent refusal to lift the guardianship, which

concerns the present application, constitutes in the Commission's

opinion an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his

private life within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the

Convention.  The Commission must therefore examine whether this

interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the

Convention.

      The Commission observes that the applicant's guardianship was

based on Section 273 of the Austrian Civil Code.  The measure was "in

accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2

(Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

      Moreover, when deciding on the guardianship, the Austrian

authorities, in particular the District Court concerned, found that the

applicant continued to suffer from a mental illness.  In this context,

the District Court also considered the statement of one of the

applicant's private experts who himself found that the applicant was

suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder.  The Court also noted

that the applicant had introduced a large number of proceedings before

various Vienna courts and that the statements to the Court itself

contained many insults.  The Court considered that the applicant had

not changed his inclination, previously determined in an expert

opinion, to verbal aggressions.  On the whole the Court concluded that

the applicant continued to require assistance as he was unable himself

to regulate important matters.

      The Commission thus considers that the interference with the

applicant's right to respect for his private life was "necessary in a

democratic society ... for the protection of disorder (and) for the

protection of the rights and freedoms of others".  Consequently, the

interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2

(Art. 8-2) of the Convention.

b)    In so far as the applicant complains about the manner in which

the guardian conducted the guardianship, and even assuming that a

separate issue still arises under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention,

the Commission considers that it is in the first place for the national

authorities, notably the courts, to assess the manner in which a

guardianship is conducted; the national authorities are in the nature

of things particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this

connection.  In this respect the Commission recalls that the guardian's

activities were under the constant supervision of the competent

guardianship court.  The Commission also observes that the applicant

failed to cooperate with the various persons and authorities.

c)    These complaints are therefore manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

11.   The applicant complains of an interference with his

correspondence in that the authorities did not serve various letters

on him as he could not prove his identity.  The applicant also

complains that his mail, in particular a letter postmarked 21 September

1987, was opened by the authority: thus, a letter which he had sent to

the Commission without a stamp, but also without his own address on the

envelope, was returned to his address.

      Under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, everyone has a right

to respect for his correspondence.

      As regards the applicant's complaint that certain letters did not

reach him, as he could not prove his identity, the Commission considers

that a passport could have been used to prove the identity.  However,

while a passport was issued in the applicant's name, it appears that

the applicant failed to pick up the passport at the office concerned.

      In so far as the applicant complains that the authorities opened

a letter of his, the Commission considers that the applicant has

insufficiently substantiated this complaint.

      It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

12.   The applicant also complains that the authorities refuse to

acknowledge his paternity of his son.

      The Commission considers that the authorities' refusal to

acknowledge a person's paternity over his child may raise an issue

under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which enshrines the right

to respect for family life.  However, in the present case the applicant

had the possibility to request acknowledgment before the Vienna City

District Court.  He also had the possibility to apply for the

acknowledgment of paternity at the Registrar's Office.

      It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

Other complaints

13.  The applicant also raises numerous other complaints under various

provisions of the Convention and Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 about different

proceedings before the Austrian authorities, their outcome and the

conduct of various persons.

      The Commission has examined the remainder of the applicant's

separate complaints as they have been submitted by him.  However, after

considering these complaints as a whole, the Commission finds that they

do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and

freedoms set out in the Convention.

      It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Second Chamber       President of the Second Chamber

        (K. ROGGE)                             (S. TRECHSEL)