PARTIAL

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

           Applications Nos.: 1) 15252/89; 2) 15628/89; 3)15629/89;

                              4) 15630/89; 5) 15857/89 and 6) 17384/90

           by:                Kurt NAEF

           against:           Switzerland

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 8 April 1991, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

             Sir  Basil HALL

             Mr.  F. MARTINEZ

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             MM.  L. LOUCAIDES

                  J.-C. GEUS

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

             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 applications introduced on 1) 23 April

1987; 2) 25 July 1989; 3) 18 May 1989; 4) 18 May 1989; 5) 3 October

1989 and 6) 10 September 1990; by Kurt NAEF against Switzerland and

registered on 1) 20 July 1989; 2) 4 October 1989; 3) 16 October 1989;

4) 16 October 1989; 5) 4 December 1989 and 6) 31 October 1990

under file Nos. 1) 15252/89; 2) 15628/89; 3)15629/89; 4) 15630/89; 5)

15857/89 and 6) 17384/90;

        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 submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

        The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1935, is a pig-breeder

residing at Oberbüren in Switzerland.

A.      Proceedings instituted against the Canton of St.  Gallen

                                 I.

        In 1965/1966 the applicant's pigs became ill and had to be

killed.  The applicant was of the opinion that the illness had been

caused by manure which had entered the drinking water supply.  In 1966

he introduced an action against the Oberbüren municipal and water

corporation, claiming damages of 150,000 SFr.  The action was

dismissed by the Wil District Court (Bezirksgericht) on 27 November

1969.  Following various further appeals, the St.  Gallen Cantonal

Court (Kantonsgericht) on 30 October and 14 November 1975 upheld the

action to the amount of 85,844 SFr.  Further appeals were eventually

dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht).

        Meanwhile, between 9 November 1971 and 4 July 1978, bankruptcy

proceedings were instituted against the applicant.

                                 II.

        On 24 June 1981 the applicant introduced a responsibility

action (Verantwortlichkeitsklage) against the Canton of St.  Gallen,

claiming damages of 653,273.60 SFr on account of the long duration of

the previous proceedings.  The action was dismissed on 10 December

1982 by the Federal Court on account of forfeiture (Verwirkung).

        According to Section 42 of the Federal Judiciary Act

(Organisationsgesetz) the Federal Court decides as the only instance

on civil litigation between Cantons and private persons.

                                 III.

        On 12 December 1983 the applicant personally introduced with

the Federal Court a responsibility action against the Canton of St.

Gallen, claiming damages of 1,505,156.85 SFr.  The applicant based his

action, which numbered three pages, on the denial of justice

(Rechtsverweigerung) by the St.  Gallen authorities.  The Federal Court

then requested the applicant to consult a lawyer and introduce a new,

improved action.

        As a result, Mr.  T., a lawyer, represented the applicant.  On

7 May 1984 T. introduced with the Federal Court a request for legal

aid (Armenrecht).  By letter of 25 May 1984 the Court pointed out the

manifest lack of responsibility of the Canton of St.  Gallen for the

alleged damages.  Subsequently, the applicant withdrew T.'s power of

attorney.

        On 3 September 1984 the applicant personally introduced an

improved action, numbering approximately 100 pages, in which he

reduced his claims to 1,320,783.20 SFr.

        A preparatory hearing (Instruktionsverhandlung) took place on

20 February 1985 at which the applicant was present.  On 26 February

1985 the Federal Court granted the applicant legal aid and, upon his

request, appointed H. as his lawyer.  However, legal aid was granted

on the condition that it would be withdrawn or reduced if it should

transpire during the proceedings that some or all of the applicant's

claims lacked prospects of success.  The Federal Court noted in

particular that on the basis of the action of 3 September 1984 the

prospects of success could not be clearly assessed.

        On 23 August 1985 H. informed the Federal Court that the

applicant had beeen involved in friendly settlement negotiations with

lawyers who were possibly responsible for the dismissal of the action

by the Federal Court on 10 December 1982.  On the basis of the friendly

settlement reached, the applicant had obtained 226,000 SFr, his lawyer

12,000 SFr.  As a result, the applicant withdrew various claims

amounting to 653,273.60 SFr from his action pending before the

Federal Court.

        Thereupon, friendly settlement negotiations took place between

the applicant and the Canton of St.  Gallen which eventually proved to be

unsuccessful.

        On 6 August 1986, the lawyer B., a substitute for H.,

introduced with the Federal Court an improved action.  Therein he

claimed under Item No. (1) 256,501.40 SFr damages for the consequences

of the polluted drinking water on the applicant's pig-breeding.  Under

Items Nos. (2) - (4) he further requested approximately 400,000 SFr.

        On 11 August 1986 the Federal Court invited the Canton of St.

Gallen to reply to the action before 30 September 1986.  The

time-limit was prolonged.  On 30 September 1986 the Federal Court

decided to limit the proceedings to Item No. (1) of the applicant's

action of 6 August 1986.

        The Canton of St.  Gallen filed its reply, numbering ten pages,

on 15 December 1986.  Therein it claimed inter alia that the Canton

lacked standing (fehlende Passivlegitimation) and that in any event

the action was manifestly ill-founded.

        On 23 October 1987 H. informed the Federal Court that the

applicant had withdrawn his power of attorney.  By letter of 2

November 1987 the Federal Court replied that in view of the legal aid

granted to the applicant on 26 February 1985 a withdrawal of the power

of attorney was not possible.  The Court further stated that, if the

lawyer were to request the court to terminate his representation, the

Court would hardly grant his request at that stage of the proceedings.

        On 26 November 1987 the applicant wrote to the Federal Court,

expressing his surprise about the Court's letter of 2 November 1987.

He also requested the appointment of another lawyer.

        On 15 December 1987 a further preparatory hearing took place

at the Federal Court.  The judge concerned put forward a friendly

settlement proposal which was not accepted.  Thereupon, the Court

requested the parties to submit further written statements.

        The applicant filed his further statement on 18 April 1988,

his lawyer B. filed a separate statement on 31 May 1988.  Meanwhile,

on 27 May 1988, the applicant had written to the Federal Court,

stating that he insisted on the withdrawal of H.'s power of attorney.

        On 11 July 1988 the applicant wrote to the Federal Court

complaining that he had received no reply to his letter of 27 May 1988

and that four and a half years after his action had been introduced no

comprehensive reply had yet been filed by the Canton of St.  Gallen.

        The Canton of St.  Gallen filed its reply on 22 August 1988.

On 2 September 1988 the written proceedings were closed.

        On 25 September 1988 a hearing was held at the Federal Court.

The applicant, his lawyer B. and a representative of the Canton of St.

Gallen were present.  In his pleadings B. expressly maintained the

applicant's claims under Items Nos. (2) - (4) of the action of 6

August 1986.

        On 25 October 1988 the Court dismissed the applicant's

action.  The judgment numbering ten pages was served on the applicant

on 18 November 1988.  Therein the Court found that in view of the

legal aid granted to the applicant on 26 February 1985 it could only

consider the submissions presented by his lawyer to whom no reproach

could be made about careless representation.  The Court further

considered that the action had to be dismissed as the Canton of St.

Gallen lacked standing.

        A further decision of the Federal Court of 25 October 1988

concerned legal aid.  The Court noted therein that the applicant's

claims as to Item No. (1) of his improved action of 6 August 1986

had now been dismissed.  With regard to the remaining items the Court

found that they lacked prospects of success inter alia as the Court had

already finally decided certain issues on 10 December 1982.  As a

result, the Court decided to withdraw the legal aid granted to the

applicant and to terminate H.'s representation.  The Court also

requested the applicant to pay advance costs of 6,000 SFr.  If the

applicant failed to pay this sum the Court threatened to declare

inadmissible the remaining items of the applicant's action.

        By letter of 16 December 1988 the applicant complained to the

Federal Court that he did not have the means to pay the sum of 6,000

SFr.

        On 6 January 1989 the Federal Court declared inadmissible the

remaining items of the applicant's action as he had failed to pay the

advance costs.

B.      Proceedings instituted against the veterinary doctor Sch.

                                 I.

        In 1979 again many of the applicant's pigs became ill and

died.  The applicant introduced an action for damages amounting to

177,076 SFr against the veterinary doctor Sch. whom he claimed was

responsible for the death of the animals.  While the Wil District

Court upheld the action to the amount of 35,000 SFr. the St.  Gallen

Cantonal Court, upon appeal, dismissed the claim on 17 December 1987.

        The applicant then filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeits-

beschwerde) with the Court of Cassation (Kassationsgericht) of the

Canton of St.  Gallen which the latter declined to deal with as the

applicant had failed to pay the necessary advance costs.

        Against the decision of the St.  Gallen Cantonal Court of 17

December 1987 the applicant filed an appeal (Berufung) which the

Federal Court dismissed on 4 July 1989.

        According to Section 43 of the Federal Judiciary Act

(Organisationsgesetz) the appeal serves as a remedy to complain of the

violation of Federal law.  With regard to the violation of

constitutional rights, among which the Federal Court includes

Convention rights, a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde)

must be employed.

        On 21 August 1989 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant's

request to reopen the Federal Court's decision of 4 July 1989.

        In a further decision of 13 September 1989 the Federal Court

declared inadmissible as being out of time the applicant's public law

appeal directed against the proceedings before the Court of Cassation.

                                 II.

        Meanwhile, Sch. introduced execution proceedings against the

applicant.  On 1 September 1989 the Wil District Court granted

execution (definitive Rechtsöffnung) to the amount of 41,751 SFr.

Upon the applicant's appeal the St.  Gallen Cantonal Court requested an

advance payment of costs of 300 SFr.  As the applicant failed to pay

this amount, the proceedings were terminated.  The applicant then

requested reinstitution into the time-limit.  This request was

dismissed by the St.  Gallen Cantonal Court on 29 November 1989.  The

applicant's further public law appeal was dismissed by the Federal

Court on 9 January 1990.

C.      Criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant

                                 I.

        On 15 December 1982 the applicant was stopped in his car by

the police.  He was suspected of driving under the influence of

alcohol and had to undergo a breath analysis the result of which was

positive.  Thereupon a blood test was ordered which was sent to the

St.  Gallen Forensic Medicine Institute (gerichtsmedizinisches

Institut).  In its expert opinion the Institute concluded that the

applicant had had a blood alcohol concentration between 1.4 and

1.5 °/oo.

        On 4 March 1983 criminal proceedings were instituted against

the applicant.  On 8 October 1985 he was questioned by the

investigating judge.

        On 27 October 1987 the Wil District Office (Bezirksamt)

informed the applicant of its intention to issue a penal order

(Strafbefehl) against him.  The applicant was given a time-limit of

eight days to consult the case-file and submit any further evidence.

        On 5 November 1985 the applicant's lawyer requested

consultation of the case-file.  On 6 November 1985 the investigating

judge replied that the time-limit had expired on 4 November 1985; he

also transmitted a penal order, dated 6 November 1985, in which the

Wil District Office convicted the applicant of driving under the

influence of alcohol and obstruction of official acts, and sentenced

him to a fine of 200 SFr and two weeks' suspended imprisonment.

        The applicant filed an appeal claiming in particular that he

had received the letter of 27 October 1985 only on 29 October, for

which reason the time-limit expired only on 6 November 1985.  The

appeal was dismissed by the Indictment Chamber (Anklagekammer) of

Canton St.  Gallen on 3 February 1986.  The applicant's further public

law appeal was declared inadmissible by the Federal Court on 14

January 1987, inter alia as the applicant had not complied with the

requirements under Section 90 of the Federal Judiciary Act.  Under

this provision, the public law appeal must state in time inter alia

the constitutional or Convention rights which the applicant considers

to have been violated.

                                 II.

        Meanwhile, on 21 November 1985, the applicant filed an

objection against the penal order.  The case was then referred to the

Wil Judicial Commission (Gerichtskommission) which on 1 September 1987

confirmed the previous conviction.  The applicant's appeal was

dismissed on 8 March 1988 by the St.  Gallen Cantonal Court

(Kantonsgericht).  On 16 December 1988 the Court of Cassation of the

Canton of St.  Gallen dismissed his plea of nullity.  His subsequent

plea of nullity to the Federal Court was dismissed on 28 February

1989.  The Court found, inter alia, that insofar as the applicant

complained of not having had a fair trial, as for instance that a

further expert opinion should have been ordered, this had to be raised

in a public law appeal.

        Against the decision of the Court of Cassation of 16 December

1988 the applicant also filed a public law appeal in which he

complained inter alia that he did not have a fair trial and that the

previous instance had incorrectly assessed the evidence.  He also

pointed out that the investigating judge had required nearly three

years for his investigations and that under such

circumstances a proper investigation was not possible.

        The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's public law appeal

on 3 May 1989.  It found inter alia that reliance could be placed on

the expert opinion submitted in the proceedings by the St.  Gallen

Forensic Medicine Institute as to the applicant's blood alcohol

concentration.  For this reason the Court regarded it as unnecessary

to obtain further evidence, for instance by hearing witnesses who

could testify as to the alcohol consumed by the applicant.  With

regard to the period of three years required for the investigation,

the Court found that this comparatively lengthy delay had not caused

the applicant any prejudice.

D.      Institution of criminal proceedings against third persons

        Apparently in the proceedings concerning the applicant's first

responsibility action against the Canton of St.  Gallen he requested

the lawyer L. to represent him.  When L.'s office missed a time-limit

for filing the applicant's appeal, the applicant requested damages.

Negotiations then started  inter alia with an insurance company with

whom L.'s office was insured.  Subsequently, the applicant attempted to

introduce criminal proceedings against L. as well as against another

lawyer and the responsible agents of the insurance company.  The

proceedings were eventually terminated.  The applicant then

introduced, in last resort, a public law appeal with the Federal Court

which was dismissed on 20 January 1987.

E.      Proceedings instituted against the Swiss Confederation

        Following the outcome of the second action which the applicant

had brought against the Canton of St.  Gallen, he introduced with the

Federal Finance Department (Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement) a claim

for damages which, he alleged, resulted from the Federal Court's

decision of 25 October 1988 (see above A).  The Department dismissed

the claim on 23 March 1989.

        The applicant then introduced with the Federal Court a claim

for damages, amounting to 671,554.90 SFr. against the Swiss Confederation

(Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft).  On 14 December 1989 the Federal

Court dismissed the applicant's challenge of Federal Court judges and

his request for legal aid, as the decisions of the Federal Court of

which the applicant complained had become definitive and could not be

made the object of a claim for damages.  The Court therefore invited

him to pay advance court costs amounting to 6,500 SFr.

        The applicant then requested the reopening of the previous

proceedings.  On 6 March 1990 the Federal Court rejected this request

and again invited the applicant to pay advance court costs amounting

to 6,500 SFr.

        In a further decision of 4 May 1990 the Federal Court noted

that the applicant had failed to pay the advance court costs and

declared his action inadmissible.

COMPLAINTS

A.      Proceedings instituted against the Canton of St.  Gallen

        In Application No. 15252/89 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings before

the Federal Court.

        In Application No. 15629/89 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention of the decision of 25 October 1988 of the

Federal Court which refused him legal aid.

        In Application No. 15630/89 the applicant complains of the

dismissal by the Federal Court of his action on 25 October 1988.  He

complains that he did not have a lawyer of his own choice and that the

proceedings lasted too long.  The applicant relies on Article 6 of the

Convention.

B.      Proceedings instituted against the veterinary doctor Sch.

        In Application No. 15857/89 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the various

proceedings and the ensuing incorrect decisions.  With regard to the

proceedings resulting in the Federal Court's decision of 4 July 1989

he complains that neither the Wil District Court nor the St.  Gallen

Cantonal Court heard witnesses to whom the applicant had referred.  He

had also not been granted legal aid.  In respect of the decision of

the Federal Court of 13 September 1989 the applicant complains of the

proceedings before the Court of Cassation of the Canton of St.  Gallen.

The applicant also directs his complaints against the decisions of the

Federal Court on 21 August 1989 and 9 January 1990 as well as against

various Federal Court judges.

C.      Criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant

        In Application No. 15252/89 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention of the refusal of the authorities, in

particular of the Federal Court in its decision of 14 January 1987, to

let him consult the case-file and submit further evidence in the

proceedings leading to the penal order of 6 November 1985.  He further

complains that these criminal proceedings were not conducted "within a

reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.

        In Application No. 15628/89 the applicant complains under

Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the criminal

proceedings instituted against him, resulting in the incorrect

decisions of the Federal Court of 28 February and 3 May 1989.  He

claims that these proceedings were unlawful and that a further expert

opinion should have been ordered.  He further complains of the manner

in which the policemen handled him when he was stopped in his car.

The applicant also refers to his complaints made in Application No.

15252/89.

D.      Institution of criminal proceedings against third persons

        In Application No. 15252/89 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention that the Swiss authorities did not pursue

the criminal proceedings which he attempted to institute against

various persons.

E.      Proceedings instituted against the Swiss Confederation

        In Application No. 17384/90 the applicant complains under

Article 6 of the Convention of the Federal Court's decision of 4 May

1990.  He also complains of the lack of impartiality of the Federal

Court judges and of the sum of 6,500 SFr which he should have paid in

advance.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains under Articles 1, 5 and 6

(Art. 1, 5, 6) of the Convention of the various proceedings and the

ensuing decisions.

2.      The Commission finds it convenient to join Applications Nos.

15252/89, 15628/89, 15629/89, 15630/89, 15857/89 and 17384/90.

3. a)   Under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention it is only the

alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention that can be the subject of an application presented by a

person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals.

        In the present case, insofar as the applicant complains that

the authorities did not introduce criminal proceedings against various

persons, the Commission recalls that no right to introduce criminal

proceedings is enshrined in the Convention and that Article 6 (Art. 6)

of the Convention does not apply to such proceedings (see No. 9777/82,

Dec. 14.7.83, D.R. 34 p. 158).

        Insofar as the applicant complains of the decision of the

Federal Court of 21 August 1989 not to reopen its previous decision

concerning the veterinary surgeon Sch., and of that Court's decision

of 9 January 1990, also concerning Sch., not to grant the

applicant reinstitution into the time-limit, the Commission considers

that Article 6 (Art. 6) also does not apply to proceedings concerning

the reopening of previous proceedings or the reinstitution into a

time-limit (see No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14 p. 171).

        It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

as being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the

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

b)      The Commission further considers that no issue arises as to

the applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention to the

proceedings instituted by the applicant against the veterinary surgeon

Sch. and to the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant

on account of driving under the influence of alcohol.  On the other

hand, an issue could arise as to the applicability of Article 6 (Art.

6) to the proceedings before the Federal Court concerning the

applicant's actions against the Canton of St.  Gallen and the Swiss

Confederation. However, the Commission need not at this stage resolve

this issue.  It considers that to the extent that these complaints are

not adjourned for further examination they are in any event

inadmissible for the following reasons.

4.      Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention 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 only within a period of six months from the date on which the

final decision was taken.

a)      Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of

the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings against the

veterinary doctor Sch., leading to the decision of the Federal Court

of 4 July 1989, the Commission considers that the applicant has not

shown that he obtained by means of a public law appeal a decision of

that Court on these complaints.

        The Commission further recalls that domestic remedies within

the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention have not been

exhausted where a domestic remedy is not admitted because of a

procedural omission or mistake  (see No. 6878/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6

p. 79).

        In the present case, insofar as the applicant complains under

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings

instituted against Sch. before the Court of Cassation, the Commission

observes that in this respect the Federal Court on 13 September 1989

declared the applicant's public law appeal inadmissible as being out

of time.  Insofar as the applicant complains of the authorities'

refusal, inter alia, to consult the case-file in the proceedings

leading to the penal order of 6 November 1985, the Commission notes

that on 14 January 1987 the Federal Court declared the respective

public law appeal inadmissible as he had not complied with the

requirements under Section 90 of the Federal Judiciary Act.

        In this respect, therefore, the applicant has not exhausted the

remedies available to him under Swiss law.

b)      Insofar as the applicant may be understood as complaining,

with regard to the proceedings instituted against the Swiss

Confederation, of the decision of the Federal Court of 14 December

1989, the Commission considers that the applicant only informed the

Commission of this decision in Application No. 17384/90 which was

introduced on 10 September 1990, that is more than six months after

the date of this decision.

        In this respect, therefore, the application has been introduced

out of time.

c)      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

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

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

applicant has raised various complaints concerning lack of access to a

court.

a)      Insofar as the applicant complains that in the proceedings

concerning his action against the Canton of St.  Gallen, the Federal

Court on 25 October 1988 refused him legal aid, the Commission

considers that the refusal of legal aid for civil proceedings which

have no prospects of success does not constitute a denial of access to

a court, provided this refusal is not arbitrary (No. 8158/78, Dec.

10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95).  In the present case the Commission does not

consider it arbitrary if the Federal Court in its decision of 25

October 1988 found that the remaining claims of the applicant's action

lacked prospects of success, inter alia as the Court had already

finally decided certain issues on 10 December 1982.

        Insofar as the applicant complains that in these proceedings

he did not have a lawyer of his own choice, the Commission recalls

that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not debar Contracting

States from making regulations, in the interests of the good

administration of Justice, concerning the access to courts (No.

6916/75, Dec. 8.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 107).  In the present case the

Commission considers that it does not render the proceedings unfair if

in 1989 at a comparatively late stage of the proceedings the Federal

Court refused to change the applicant's lawyer.  The Commission notes

in particular that the applicant has not sufficiently substantiated in

what respect the lawyer H. who was then representing him did not

properly fulfil his task.

        Insofar as the applicant may be understood as complaining that

the Federal Court declared inadmissible various public law appeals, or

parts thereof, the Commission equally finds that it does not render the

proceedings unfair if the Federal Court required, in order to deal

with the applicant's appeals, that certain formal conditions were met

with regard to the public law appeal statements.

        Accordingly, these complaints do not disclose any appearance

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

This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded

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

Convention.

b)      Insofar as the applicant complains that in the proceedings

which he instituted against the Swiss Confederation he was asked to

pay advance court costs of 6,500 SFr, the Commission considers that

further information is required and that the Government's observations

on the applications should be obtained under Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of

the Commission's Rules of Procedure.  Accordingly, the Commission

reserves the examination of this part of the applications.

6.      The applicant also complains of the dismissal by the Federal

Court of his action against the Canton of St.  Gallen and of his

conviction on account of driving under the influence of alcohol.

        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 applications alleging

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

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention (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).

a)      It is true that the applicant also complains under Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings

leading to his conviction.  However, the Commission finds no

indication that the applicant, who in the proceedings leading to the

Federal Court's decisions of 28 February and 3 May 1989 was

represented by a lawyer, could not present his case properly or that

the proceedings were improperly conducted.  In particular, it does not

render the proceedings unfair if the Federal Court, for instance,

found that reliance could be placed on an expert opinion prepared by

the St. Gallen Forensic Medicine Institute for which reason it was

considered unnecessary to obtain further evidence.

        In this respect, therefore, the application is also manifestly

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

the Convention.

b)      The applicant further complains under Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention of the length of the proceedings which he

instituted against the Canton of St.  Gallen.

        Under this provision the applicant also complains of the

length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him on account

of driving under the influence of alcohol.

        With regard to the applicant's complaints the Commission

considers that further information is required and that the

Government's observations on the applications should be obtained under

Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Accordingly, the Commission reserves the examination of this part of

the applications.

7.      The applicant raises various other complaints, inter alia

about the manner in which the police handled him when he was stopped

on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, and about the

lack of impartiality of various judges.

        The Commission has examined the applicant's further complaints

as they have been submitted by him.  However, after considering the

case as a whole, the Commission finds that the remainder of the

application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the

rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.  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.

        For these reasons, the Commission by a majority,

1.      DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATIONS NOS. 15252/89, 15628/89,

        15629/89, 15630/89, 15857/89 AND 17384/90;

2.      DECIDES TO ADJOURN THE EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANT'S

        COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED

        AGAINST THE CANTON OF ST. GALLEN, THE LENGTH OF THE

        CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE APPLICANT

        AND THE COURT COSTS OF 6,500 SFR WHICH HE WAS ASKED

        TO PAY IN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SWISS

        CONFEDERATION;

3.      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS.

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

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