Application No. 10533/83

                                by I.H.

                                against Austria

     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

4 October 1989, the following members being present:

             MM.  C. A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J. A. FROWEIN

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J. C. SOYER

                  H. G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

                  G. BATLINER

                  H. VANDENBERGHE

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  L. LOUCAIDES

             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 27 November 1978

by I.H. against Austria and registered on 22 August 1983

under file No. 10533/83;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having regard to:

      - the Commission's decision of 10 March 1988 to declare part

        of the application inadmissible and to bring the remainder

        of the application to the notice of the respondent Government

        and invite them to submit written observations on its

        admissibility and merits;

      - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

        29 July 1988 and the observations in reply submitted by the

        applicant on 31 May 1989;

        Having deliberated on 3 and 4 October 1989;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be

summarised as follows:

        The applicant is a Hungarian refugee born in 1944 who came

to Austria in 1964.  At the time of introducing the present

application he was detained in an institution for mentally deranged

offenders.  He was released in November 1984 and now resides in

Vienna.  The present application concerns the circumstances of the

applicant's above detention.

        On 9 November 1972, the Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht

für Strafsachen) of Vienna convicted the applicant of several criminal

offences involving, inter alia, acts of physical aggression against his

wife and clients.  It pronounced a prison sentence of two years.  This

judgment was in substance confirmed by the Supreme Court (Oberster

Gerichtshof) on 28 June 1973.  The applicant served his sentence until

13 May 1974.  With regard to his conviction he filed an application

with the Commission (No. 6398/73) which was declared inadmissible on

12 December 1974.

        On 2 February 1973, the Regional Criminal Court of Vienna

found the applicant guilty of a number of further offences (fraud,

extortion, resistance against officials, etc.).  It imposed a prison

sentence of five and a half years which was subsequently reduced to

three years by a decision of the Supreme Court of 12 December 1973.

The applicant served this sentence immediately after the first one,

until 13 May 1977.

        During his detention in various prisons the applicant was

found to be a difficult prisoner, mainly because he addressed numerous

petitions and complaints to various authorities concerning his

allegedly wrongful convictions and his treatment in prison.  Because

of his querulous behaviour, civil proceedings were eventually taken

against him in 1975 by the prosecution authorities with a view to

establishing a partial lack of legal capacity to act (beschränkte

Entmündigung).  After having heard psychiatric expert evidence, the

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

a decision of 23 December 1975 declared him to lack legal capacity,

and appointed a guardian (Beistand) for him.  This decision became

final on 3 November 1977 when it was confirmed by the Vienna Regional

Court of Civil Affairs (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen).  The

applicant denies that there is a valid final decision in this respect.

In 1983 the guardian was replaced by another guardian who continues to

exercise his functions to the present day.

        Having served the above two sentences on 13 May 1977, the

applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed

further criminal offences while in detention (assaults on prison

wardens and fellow prisoners, uttering dangerous threats in letters

addressed to the presiding judge of the first trial).  The warrant of

arrest of 12 May 1977 was based on the grounds that the applicant

might abscond and carry out his threat to commit further offences

(Section 180 paras. 1(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Strafprozessordnung)).

        On 9 January 1978 the President of the trial court in the new

case decided that the applicant should be provisionally detained

(vorläufige Unterbringung) in an institution for mentally deranged

offenders (Anstalt für geistig abnorme Rechtsbrecher) under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  This decision was based on the

advice of several experts.  It was confirmed by the Review Chamber

(Ratskammer) of the Regional Court of Vienna on 6 March 1978, and by

the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 19 April 1978.

        On 4 April 1978 a trial took place which was interrupted due

to the behaviour of the applicant.  The applicant was then examined by

a psychiatric expert who expressed the view that the applicant

suffered from paranoia querulans which could be considered as being

equivalent to a mental illness and that he was therefore irresponsible

for his acts.  In view of this expert opinion, the prosecution

abandoned the original indictment seeking the applicant's conviction

and replaced it by a new one aiming at his detention in an institution

for mentally deranged offenders according to Section 21 para. 1 of the

Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch).

        A new trial was held before the Vienna Regional Criminal

Court on 9 and 10 January 1979.  The Court found the facts of three

of the charges established (threats against a prison director

and a judge, resistance against officials, and bodily injury of a

prison warden).  It ordered the applicant's detention in an institution

for mentally deranged offenders under Section 21 para. 1 of the Penal

Code, on the ground that he was a dangerous person who was not

responsible for his acts under criminal law.

        As regards the question of criminal responsibility, the Court

took into account the expert opinions of three psychiatrists who all

considered that, although there were no signs of a mental illness in

the strict sense, the applicant suffered from paranoia querulans with

strong tendencies to aggression.  In this state of mind he had already

committed the earlier criminal offences which had led to his criminal

convictions in 1972 and 1973, but the symptoms had aggravated during

the period of his subsequent detention.  At least since 1975, the

querulous behaviour had reached the level of a serious mental

instability equivalent to a mental illness, preventing the applicant

from realising the unlawfulness of his behaviour and from acting

lawfully.  The Court found the applicant to be a dangerous person

ridden by the obsession that he must fight against his "persecutors"

not only by a flood of petitions and complaints but also by threats

and physical acts of aggression.

        The applicant's plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde)

against this decision was in part successful.  By a decision of

3 October 1979 the Supreme Court confirmed the findings concerning

the first charge (dangerous threats) but quashed those relating to the

second and third charges on the ground that the trial court had failed

to hear certain witnesses.  The matter was referred back to the

Regional Court for a new trial.

        This trial took place on 20 March and 9 April 1980.  It

covered the two charges in relation to which the Supreme Court

had quashed the earlier judgment, and a new charge of dangerous

threats.  The facts of all three offences were found to be

established.  The Court again ordered the applicant's detention in an

institution for mentally deranged offenders under Section 21 para. 1

of the Penal Code, on the grounds stated in its earlier judgment of

10 January 1979.  It also relied on new expert evidence showing that

the situation had not essentially changed despite some improvement

which had been brought about by the applicant's psychiatric treatment.

        This judgment became final on 6 November 1980 as the applicant

withdrew his plea of nullity.  The applicant contests that he validly

waived this remedy.

        The applicant repeatedly challenged his continued

detention in the institution for mentally deranged offenders.

        After the Supreme Court's judgment of 3 October 1979 had been

served on the applicant, he requested his release, but this request

was rejected by the Review Chamber on 28 January 1980.

        The detention ordered by the Regional Court's judgment of

9 April 1980 was maintained by a decision of the same Court of

8 February 1982 on the ground that the applicant continued to be a

dangerous person as confirmed by a report of the psychiatric hospital.

        In July, September and October 1983, the applicant again

requested his release, observing that no decision ordering his

continued detention had been taken within the statutory one year

time-limit (Section 25 para. 3 of the Penal Code), which had expired

on 8 February 1983.  The Court of Appeal on 14 February 1984 referred

the matter to the Regional Court.  Two days later, on 16 February 1984,

the Regional Court ordered the applicant's continued detention.  It

found that, according to the report of the psychiatric hospital, the

applicant's state of mental health had not essentially changed.  He

still continued to write vexatious complaints without the consent of

his guardian whose appointment he did not accept, and if released he

would presumably raise numerous claims.  At the same time, it could

not be predicted whether he would carry out any of the threats

previously uttered in particular against the prison staff.  His

paranoia querulans could not be stopped even with modern medical

treatment.  The treatment which he actually received had a sedative

effect which might end with his release as he was opposed to this

treatment, considering himself to be sane.  As after his release he

would certainly refuse to undergo any treatment which, however, was

absolutely necessary, the danger which was at the basis of his

detention continued to exist.

        The applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) against this decision was

rejected by the Vienna Court of Appeal on 4 April 1984.  It considered

that the Regional Court had arrived at the correct conclusions on the

basis of the very detailed expert opinion of the director of the

psychiatric hospital and a supplementary report by another

psychiatrist.

        The applicant was eventually released by a decision of the

Regional Court of 14 November 1984.  On the basis of an expert

opinion obtained on 14 September 1984 it noted that there had been

no essential improvement of the applicant's state of health.  His

paranoia querulans continued to exist, it had even developed by

acquiring  a political component after the applicant's treatment with

injections had been discontinued, and he had still recently uttered

serious threats.  However, the querulous behaviour was primarily

concerned with the detention (Haftquerulanz) and the vexatious

litigation (Rechtsquerulanz) was only a secondary phenomenon.  The

latter would probably continue to exist even after a release, but

vexatious complaints, petitions etc. did not constitute a danger

within the meaning of Section 21 of the Penal Code.  The querulous

behaviour concerning the detention on the other hand would cease in

the case of a conditional release.  A genuine aggressiveness had been

observed only on rare occasions since the commission of the offences

which had led to the applicant's detention.  It was to be assumed that

the applicant would seek to redress the wrong allegedly or even in

reality done to him first of all by querulous complaints.  While it

could not be excluded that he would become aggressive in the case of

frustration, there was from the psychiatric point of view no acute

danger that he would commit criminal offences with grave consequences

because of his abnormal personality.  A conditional release was

therefore now possible.  A further psychiatric treatment or treatment

by drugs was no longer considered necessary by the expert, although it

was recommended.

        By the date of his release on 14 November 1984, the applicant

had been detained without interruption under various legal titles

since 15 May 1972, i.e. for 121/2 years, including 71/2 years after

completion of his two criminal sentences on 13 May 1977.  After this

date he was detained

        - until 27 November 1980 in the prison of the Regional

          Criminal Court of Vienna (detention on remand, since

          9 January 1978 carried out for some time as provisional

          detention in an institution for mentally deranged

          offenders (Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

          and as from 5 September 1979 as provisional detention in

          a psychiatric hospital (Section 429 para. 4 of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure);

        - until his release on 14 November 1984 in a closed

          department of the psychiatric hospital of Vienna

          attached to the special prison of Mittersteig.

        Throughout his detention, the applicant was considered a

particularly difficult prisoner and was therefore subjected to very

close supervision.  The measures applied may be summarised as follows:

        Medical treatment

        Already in November 1976 the applicant's guardian had

suggested that the applicant should be subjected to compulsory

psychiatric treatment in order to prevent vexatious complaints.  After

a hunger-strike in December 1977 he was transferred for a week to the

psychiatric hospital of Vienna and subsequently complained that he had

been treated with sedatives against his will.  In view of increased

aggressiveness the Vienna Regional Court on 20 June 1979 ordered four

weeks' detention in a security cot (Gitterbett) which was carried out

in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna from 18 June to 23 July 1979.

Upon his return to the Regional Court's prison, the applicant began

another hunger-strike to protest against his continued detention and

deprivation of his files.  He had a complete breakdown on 28 August 1979.

        On 29 August 1979 the Vienna Court of Appeal ordered the

Regional Court's Review Chamber to deal with a complaint of the

applicant against his detention in a security cot.  On 5 September 1979

the Review Chamber decided to replace that measure by provisional

detention in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna (Section 429 para. 4

of the Code of Criminal Procedure) subject to intensive medical,

socio- and psychotherapeutical treatment.  The Court of Appeal upheld

this decision on 12 October 1979 in view of psychiatric reports

confirming that the applicant presented an acute danger to the public

and to himself, justifying his compulsory psychiatric detention under

Section 50 of the Hospital Act (Krankenanstaltengesetz).

        The applicant subsequently requested the institution of

criminal proceedings against doctors and nurses because of his

having been kept with fetters in the security cot and having been

compulsorily treated with sedatives ("Niederspritzen"), alleging that

these measures amounted to attempted murder.  However, in view of

the guardian's consent to the compulsory treatment (14 December 1979)

no charges seem to have been laid by the prosecution.

        After these events the applicant remained most of the time in

the psychiatric clinic of Vienna where he continued to be treated with

sedatives on a regular basis until August 1984 (injections every

28 days).  It further appears that from 1979 until the summer of 1982

the applicant observed a hunger-strike, during which he was subject to

compulsory feeding.  Thereafter he underwent a work-therapy which he

stopped in the summer of 1984 after his guardian had seized the

applicant's remuneration (AS 3900.-) for the purpose of covering his

fees.

        Control of correspondence

        Throughout his detention the applicant conducted

correspondence on an extremely large scale, including private and

business letters and first of all letters, petitions and complaints

addressed to various authorities in connection with the numerous

proceedings in which he was involved or which he wished to institute,

and also concerning his treatment in prison, including the handling of

his correspondence.

        In their attempts to reduce the flood of correspondence the

authorities resorted to different measures, including temporary

restrictions on the use of writing material.  Thus the applicant's

first letter to the Commission of 27 November 1978 was written on

brown paper bags and the applicant stated that he had been refused

other paper and had also complained of this to the Ministry.  Most of

the applicant's subsequent letters to the Commission were according to

him smuggled out under circumvention of the prison rules because he

did not get sufficient writing material or permission to write.

        As regards delivery of correspondence, the applicant also

encountered difficulties on numerous occasions, both concerning the

incoming and outgoing mail.  The applicant was repeatedly advised

of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Law Enforcement Act

(Strafvollzugsgesetz), in particular that letters must be submitted in

unsealed envelopes, that they must be correctly addressed and that he

must pay the postage.  He was also advised repeatedly that it was

inadmissible to request an authority other than the prison, e.g. the

Ministry of Justice, to forward letters to other addresses on his

behalf.  Such letters were regularly returned to him.

        The payment of postage developed into a special issue of

confrontation with the authorities.  The applicant claimed that he was

unable to pay postage from the money available to him for this purpose

(Eigengeld), and that the postage must therefore be paid by the

State.  However, the authorities did not accept this view and

frequently refused to forward letters without stamps.  On 27 January 1977

the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the postage was, in principle,

to be paid by the applicant from his own money, and that letters

without postage should not be accepted for transmission.  Only letters

addressed to authorities competent for criminal matters were to be

forwarded through the official channels.

        It appears that in practice most letters addressed to

authorities and courts were in fact transmitted to them, despite the

applicant's failure to pay postage, while other letters without

postage were returned to the applicant.  The applicant nevertheless

consistently maintained his practice of submitting letters without

postage.  He continued to do so even after his release and he has also

posted letters to the Commission without stamps on numerous occasions.

Some were returned and when the applicant refused to pay additional

postage they were retained by the Post Office and not handed back to

him.

        During his detention on remand after 13 May 1977, the

applicant's mail was in principle subject to control by the

investigating judge under the relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.  However, when the applicant was detained in

the psychiatric hospital of Vienna, special arrangements were made for

the control of his mail.  The hospital concluded an agreement with the

applicant's guardian according to which the applicant's letters were

no longer directly transmitted to the addressees, but collected and

from time to time sent to the guardian, who then decided whether

they should be forwarded or not.  Only letters addressed to the

guardianship court and concerning the guardian's person as well as

letters addressed to the applicant's defence counsel were excepted.

This practice was apparently maintained from February 1977 until the

applicant's release in November 1984.

        Access to files

        In connection with the numerous proceedings in which he was

involved or which he tried to start, the applicant kept voluminous

files in his cell, but he was repeatedly deprived of these files.

        On 7 November 1977 his cell was controlled and thousands of

pages removed to the deposits.  The prison administration subsequently

reported this measure to the Ministry and to the applicant's

guardian.  On 9 December 1977 the Ministry instructed the prison to

grant the applicant access to the files at any time, although it did

not object to their removal from the cell.

        In August 1979 the cell was searched and voluminous files

removed to the deposits.  They were returned to the applicant in the

psychiatric hospital of Vienna on 25 September 1979, despite doubts

of the prison administration and the Ministry, because it was thought

that possession of the files could contribute to the success of the

psychiatric treatment.  However, it appears that the files were

removed again and taken to the deposits after a short period.

        At the trials in 1979 and 1980 the applicant complained that

the deprivation of his files had hindered the preparation of his

defence.  His requests to adjourn the proceedings for this reason were

rejected.

        It appears that after the applicant's committal for detention

as a mentally deranged offender his voluminous files were not

available to him in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna, but were kept

in a special room to which he was not granted access, not even for the

purpose of preparing his present application to the Commission.

According to the Government's submissions, the applicant could,

however, request the handing out of specific documents.  He did not

make such requests but insisted on access to the whole of the files.

His attempts in 1982 to get permission for consultation of the file by

a (non-practising) lawyer with whom he was acquainted also failed.

        Access to court

        In particular during the first period of his detention the

applicant was involved in numerous court (divorce, incapacitation,

business-related civil and enforcement proceedings) and

administrative proceedings (residence status, taxation, unauthorised

use of title etc.).  He was frequently brought to court hearings.

        However, after the institution of incapacitation proceedings

in 1975, the applicant was no longer able to bring or conduct court

proceedings himself.  Proceedings were adjourned by the Commercial

Court (Handelsgericht) of Vienna and the Administrative Court

(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) pending the conclusion of the incapacitation

proceedings.  As regards the institution of criminal proceedings, the

Supreme Court ruled on 10 March 1977 that the consent of the guardian

was required according to the circumstances of each case.  Numerous

criminal proceedings brought by the applicant were subsequently

discontinued failing the consent of his guardian.

        After the adoption of the procedure whereby the applicant's

mail was channelled through his guardian on a systematic basis, the

applicant was in principle prevented from instituting complaints and

other proceedings.  This procedure was apparently maintained from 1977

until the date of the applicant's release in November 1984.

COMPLAINTS

        Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant submits that

he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, in particular, that his

detention after completion of his criminal sentences lacked any

justification.  He was detained on remand from 13 May 1977 until

9 April 1980, but when this measure was ordered there was no reasonable

suspicion of his having committed any criminal offence nor any reason

to assume that he would abscond or commit further offences (Article 5

para. 1 (c)).  He was not released or brought to trial within a

reasonable time (Article 5 para. 3).  Because he was deprived of

writing material he was prevented from submitting written requests for

release and was compelled to make such requests orally to the visiting

judge.  However, all these requests were either suppressed or

disregarded and no decision was taken on them (Article 5 para. 4).

The same applied to his requests for compensation (Article 5 para. 5).

        Insofar as his detention in psychiatric hospitals is

concerned, the applicant contends that it was totally unjustified as

he was never a person of unsound mind.  His allegedly vexatious

behaviour which was considered equivalent to a mental illness was,

in his opinion, no more than the legitimate exercise of his right of

defence against the various unlawful measures taken against him.

        The applicant raises numerous complaints concerning the

conditions of his detention:

        He complains under Article 2 of the Convention that, due to

acts of physical ill-treatment and lack of appropriate medical care,

his life was put in danger on frequent occasions.

        He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he

was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or torture by the

conditions of his detention, i.e. physical and mental ill-treatment,

isolated detention under appalling conditions for lengthy periods,

being kept with fetters in a security cot for a considerable time,

lack of appropriate medical care, compulsory feeding during lengthy

periods of hunger-strike (altogether more than three years) and

compulsory treatment with neuroleptic drugs against his will during

most of the time of his detention in the psychiatric hospital of

Vienna.

        The applicant considers that during his detention he was

without any rights and thus practically kept in slavery contrary to

Article 4 para. 1 of the Convention.  Between October 1982 and

June 1984 he was subjected to a work therapy in the psychiatric

hospital and received a very low renumeration.  He stopped working

when he learnt that his guardian had seized the money (AS 3900.-) in

order to cover his fees.  In the applicant's view this situation

amounts to compulsory labour contrary to Article 4 para. 2 of the

Convention.

        The interference with his private life and correspondence

amounted in his view to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention which

was not justified by paragraph 2 of this provision.  He further

submits that the interference with his correspondence and the

withholding of his files also affected his rights under Article 6 of

the Convention.  Insofar as the interference concerned communications

with the Commission he invokes Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention.

        The applicant alleges that in prison he was not allowed to

participate in religious ceremonies and that therefore his right under

Article 9 was violated.

        He sees further interferences with his rights under Article 9

(freedom of thought and conscience) and Article 10 of the Convention

(freedom of expression) in the fact that his attempts to criticise the

various measures taken against him led to serious sanctions.  Article 10

(freedom of information) is also invoked insofar as he was kept for

lengthy periods in complete isolation, without radio, television,

books and journals.  By the same measures he was allegedly deprived of

his right of education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention.

        He submits he had no possibility to complain effectively of

the various measures taken against him and therefore alleges a breach

of Article 13 of the Convention.

        The measures in question were allegedly taken against him

because of his race, national origin or language, and were thus

discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.  He further

claims that they were abuses of the Austrian State contrary to

Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention.

        Finally, the applicant complains under Article 2 para. 2 of

Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that he was prevented from leaving

Austria.  In 1979/1980 he tried to arrange his repatriation to

Hungary, but this was made impossible by the Austrian authorities

who insisted that in Hungary he should also be detained in a mental

hospital.  The Hungarian authorities refused to take him back on this

condition.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The applicant's first letter concerning the present case dates

from 27 November 1978.  That letter was written on brown paper bags.

The applicant complained, inter alia, that in the prison of the

Regional Criminal Court of Vienna where he was then detained he was

refused writing material also for letters to the Commission.  He

referred to earlier letters written on wrapping paper and stated that

the prison authorities had probably failed to forward these letters to

the Commission as he had received no reply.  The letter of 27 November

1978 concluded by a postscriptum according to which a prison warden

had refused to accept the letter for delivery in the morning of

28 November 1978.

        This letter was received by the Commission on 31 January

1979.  The Secretariat's reply of 9 February 1979 referred to the

obligation of the Contracting States under Article 25 para. 1 of the

Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of

individual petition.  With regard to his complaints under other

Articles of the Convention the applicant was invited to show that he

had exhausted domestic remedies.

        The applicant wrote again to the Commission on 1 December 1979

and 24 April 1981, each time also complaining of interferences with

his correspondence and the withholding of his files.  He was again

invited by the Secretariat to show that he had exhausted domestic

remedies.

        On 2 June 1981 the applicant wrote that he was unable to

submit any decisions as his files were still withheld from him.  The

Commission's Secretary replied on 25 June 1981 that under Rule 38 of

the Commission's Rules of Procedure it was the applicant's duty to

submit the relevant documents.  If he could not comply, he should ask

his defence counsel or guardian.  An application form was enclosed.

        The applicant submitted the completed form on 2 July 1981.

However, the case was not immediately registered because he had used

abusive language.  On 31 July 1981 he was warned that the Commission

might consider the application as abusive within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention and a new application form was

sent to him in order to give him an opportunity to set out his

complaints in proper form.

        On 3 February 1983 the applicant insisted on registration of

the case on the basis of the application form which he had already

submitted.  On 22 February 1983 he was again invited to complete the

form in good order.  On 2 March 1983 he complained of the continued

refusal to register his case stating that the second application form

had been taken away by the prison administration.

        The matter was then submitted to the Commission's President

who, on 14 July 1983, ruled that the applicant should be provided

with a new application form which he should complete in good order

having regard, in particular, to any further developments in the case.

Reference was again made to the authorities' duty not to hinder the

effective exercise of the right of individual petition, also as

regards access to the necessary files.

        The applicant submitted the application form on 31 July 1983,

stating that the documents were still being withheld from him.  The

form reached the Commission on 22 August 1983 and the case was

registered on the same day under file No. 10533/83.

        On 14 October 1983 a member of the Commission, acting as

Rapporteur, after carrying out a preliminary examination of the case,

decided to request information from the respondent Government in

accordance with Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.  In

particular, the Government were asked whether and, if so, for what

reasons, the applicant had at any time been restricted or otherwise

hindered in his correspondence with the Austrian authorities and/or

the Commission.  The Government were further requested to state

whether it was true that any documents which could be relevant to the

applicant's complaints before the Commission were not available to

him and, if so, on which legal basis they were being withheld.  In

that case the Government were requested to submit the said documents

to the Commission.

        The Government replied to the request for information on

13 December 1983, stating, inter alia, that during his detention in the

Regional Court's prison and in the special prison of Mittersteig the

applicant had not been hindered in exercising his right to file

applications by interfering with his correspondence or by retaining

relevant documents.  The alleged restriction of his right to lodge

applications and the alleged interference with his correspondence

might perhaps be felt by the applicant to arise from the fact that his

correspondence must first be shown to his guardian in view of his

partial incapacitation.  The applicant had repeatedly been reminded of

his duty under Section 92 para. 3 of the Criminal Law Enforcement

Act to pay the postal charges for his correspondence with the

Commission.   As he had refused to bear these postal charges the

correspondence concerned could not be dispatched.  The documents kept

by the applicant were extremely voluminous (11 cardboard boxes, each

weighing between 25 and 30 kilogrammes) and therefore could not be

stored in his cell.  They were kept in a special locked store-room.

Specific documents could always be handed out to him at his request,

but he had insisted on having all 11 boxes.

        In his comments of 31 December 1983, the applicant maintained

that, contrary to the Government's assertions, he was still being

hindered in the exercise of his right of correspondence, including

correspondence with the Commission.  He further noted the Government's

admission that he had not been granted access to his documents.

        In a letter of 21 April 1984, the applicant stated again that

the authorities continued to refuse him access to these documents.

        On 21 May 1984 the Commission's Rapporteur, noting that it

seemed impossible to obtain the relevant documents through the

applicant, made a second request for information to the respondent

Government, asking them under Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure to submit a full documentation of the case.

        The Government submitted this documentation which fills 13

Leitz files on 11 July 1984, and the applicant submitted certain

comments on 26 July and 25 October 1984.

        Thereafter, the applicant continued to write very frequently

to the Commission, raising various additional complaints even after

his release from prison.

        By a partial decision of 10 March 1988, the Commission

declared certain complaints inadmissible, in particular concerning

facts which had occurred before 27 May 1978, that is more than six

months before the introduction of the application.  As regards facts

which occurred after this date, the Commission decided to give notice

of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them,

pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to submit,

before 3 June 1988, their observations in writing on the admissibility

and merits of the application.  This time-limit was subsequently

extended until 1 August 1988.

        The Government submitted their observations on 29 July 1988.

The applicant was invited to submit observations in reply before

20 September 1988.  This time-limit was suspended on 29 September 1988

in view of his request for free legal aid.

        This request had been made on 25 April 1988 and the necessary

forms were sent to the applicant on 4 May 1988.  A reminder was sent on

22 July 1988.  In his reply of 19 August 1988 the applicant claimed

that he had already submitted the legal aid forms on 23 May 1988.  As

the forms had not been received by the Commission, the Secretary urged

the applicant on 13 and 27 September 1988 to submit copies of the

legal aid papers.  They were received on 14 October and transmitted

to the Government for comments before 8 November 1988.  At the

Government's request this time-limit was extended until 23 December 1988.

The comments were submitted on 15 December 1988.

        On 9 January 1989, the Acting President of the Commission

granted free legal aid to the applicant whose lawyer was invited to

submit observations in reply before 6 March 1989.  At the lawyer's

request, this time-limit was extended until 31 May 1989 on which date

he submitted his observations on behalf of the applicant.

THE LAW

a)      Deprivation of liberty

1.      Following its partial decision of 10 March 1988, the

Commission is called upon to examine the applicant's complaint

concerning his detention after 27 May 1978.

        The applicant alleges that this detention was unlawful and

unjustified, in particular that there were no sufficent reasons to

order his detention on remand and/or his detention as a person of

unsound mind, that the length of his detention on remand was excessive

as he was not brought to trial within a reasonable time, that his

requests for release were disregarded during his detention on remand

and that the time-limits for the judicial review of his subsequent

detention in an institution for mentally deranged offenders were not

respected.  He invokes Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, the

relevant parts of which read as follows:

"1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

person.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in

the following cases and in accordance with a procedure

prescribed by law:

        (a)     the lawful detention of a person after

conviction by a competent court;

        ...

        (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person

effected for the purpose of bringing him before the

competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having

committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered

necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing

after having done so;

        ...

        (e)     the lawful detention of ...

persons of unsound mind ...

3.      Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 1(c) (Art. 5-1-c) of this Article shall be

brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law

to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a

reasonable time or to release pending trial.  Release may be

conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4.      Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or

detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the

lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court

and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

        ..."

2.      From 13 May 1977 until the Regional Court's judgment of

9 April 1980 the applicant was kept in detention on remand which was

partly carried out as provisional detention in a mental institution.

        The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention in that there were neither sufficient

reasons for justifying his detention on remand under subparagraph (c)

(Art. 5-1-c), nor sufficient reasons justifying his detention as a

person of unsound mind under subparagraph (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of this

provision.  He further alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) in that he was not brought to trial within a reasonable time.

The Government claim that the applicant's detention was covered by

Article 5 para. 1 (c) and (e) (Art. 5-1-c, 5-1-e) and that the

"reasonable time" requirement in Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) was

respected.

        The Commission considers that the applicant's above complaints

are closely interrelated and cannot be separated.  In view of the

considerable length of the detention in question (almost two years and

eleven months between 13 May 1977 and 9 April 1980) the applicant's

above complaints cannot be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded

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

Convention.  This part of the application must accordingly be

examined as to the merits, no other ground of inadmissibility having

been established.

3.      From 9 April 1980 until his release on 14 November 1984 the

applicant was detained in a closed department of the psychiatric

hospital of Vienna attached to the special prison of Mittersteig.

Until 6 November 1980, the date when the applicant withdrew his plea

of nullity against the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980, this

detention continued to be regarded as detention on remand under

Austrian law, but it was carried out as provisional detention in a

psychiatric hospital.  After 6 November 1980 the detention in the same

hospital was based on the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980,

which had established that the applicant's acts fulfilled the

objective conditions of criminal offences, but that he lacked criminal

responsibility.  The expert evidence had revealed that the applicant's

state of mind, although not amounting to a mental illness in the

proper sense, was equivalent to such an illness and involved a

potential of aggressiveness.   For this reason the Regional Court

ordered the applicant's committal to an institution for mentally

deranged offenders.

        The applicant claims that he was never insane and that the aim

of preventing vexatious litigation cannot justify detention in a

mental institution.  He submits that also during this period his

detention lacked justification and, in particular, that it was not

covered by Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e).  The Government contend that,

following the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980, the applicant

was detained "after conviction by a competent court", and that for

this reason the detention was covered by Article 5 para. 1 (a)

(Art. 5-1-a).  In the Government's view it was further justified under

Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e) throughout the relevant period,

having regard in particular to the finding of a state of mind

equivalent to a mental illness and involving aggressive behaviour.

        Having regard to the reasons of the psychiatric expert opinion

of 14 September 1984 which finally led to the applicant's release in

November 1984, the Commission cannot at this stage of the proceedings

exclude that, although initially the applicant's detention as a person

of unsound mind may have been justified under Article 5 para. 1 (e)

(Art. 5-1-e) of the Convention, it may have ceased to be justifed

under this provision at an earlier time than when he was actually

released.  This part of the application is therefore not manifestly

ill-founded.  It requires examination as to the merits, no other

ground of inadmissibility having been established.

4.      The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4

(Art. 5-4) of the Convention in that his requests for release were

disregarded and the legal time-limits for judicial review of the

detention were not respected.

        The Commission considers that the applicant's allegations in

this respect have not been sufficiently substantiated as regards the

period prior to the Regional Court's judgment of 9 April 1980.  In

this respect his complaint must therefore be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded.

        As regards the subsequent period, the applicant submits that

the procedure followed was unlawful because the time-limit stipulated

in Section 25 para. 3 of the Penal Code was not observed.  The

Government admit that during the first review period the time-limit

was exceeded.  It had been set down on 1 October 1981 when the

Regional Court's decision became final on 6 November 1980, but the

review proceedings actually started on 11 December 1981.  In the

Government's view this nevertheless did not affect the lawfulness of

the detention which was confirmed on 8 February 1982.  In the second

review period the time-limit was observed according to the Government

as the proceedings started on 6 December 1982.  They explain the delay

until the decision of 16 February 1984 by a necessity to obtain

comprehensive expert evidence.

        The Commission finds that the parties' above arguments raise

complex issues of law and fact concerning the application of Article 5

para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, in particular as regards the

reasonableness of the actual intervals of judicial review and the

question of whether there has been a speedy decision on the

applicant's requests for release.  This part of the application

accordingly is not manifestly ill-founded.  It requires examination as

to the merits, no other ground of inadmissibility having been

established.

b)      Conditions of detention

5.      As to the conditions of his detention, the applicant complains

that physical ill-treatment and lack of appropriate medical care put

his life in danger, contrary to Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention;

that he was subjected to slavery and forced labour, contrary to

Article 4 (Art. 4) of the Convention; that he was not allowed to

participate in religious ceremonies, contrary to Article 9 (Art. 9) of

the Convention; and that his right to education was interfered with

contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the Convention.  The

Commission finds none of these complaints sufficently substantiated.

It accordingly rejects this part of the application as being

manifestly ill-founded.

6.      The applicant also complains that the conditions of his

detention in the psychiatric hospital of Vienna violated Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

        "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment."

        In this context the applicant has referred in particular to

his isolation, compulsory feeding and compulsory treatment with

neuroleptic drugs during lengthy periods.

        The Government have submitted a detailed report on the

applicant's situation, in particular his medical treatment, during the

period under consideration.  From this it appears that the applicant

was kept in a private room according to his own wish, and that his

isolation was in no way total.  As regards the applicant's compulsory

medical treatment and compulsory feeding, the Government submit that

these measures "undoubtedly represent(ed) an interference with the

applicant's right as a person".  The applicant consented to a certain

degree to being fed through a tube during his long hungerstrike (which

the Government admit was an unusual measure from the medical point of

view) and to his treatment with sedatives.  However, it was not always

possible to secure his consent, and in this respect his compulsory

feeding and treatment with neuroleptic drugs was justified for medical

reasons in order to prevent the applicant from doing harm to himself

and becoming aggressive against others.  The consent of the

applicant's guardian was obtained on 14 December 1979 for all

necessary medical treatment.  It appears that the decisions concerning

this treatment were taken by the medical staff of the hospital, and

that the legal basis for this is to be found in the Hospitals Act.

        The applicant contends that the relevant provision in Section 8

para. 3 of the Hospitals Act did not cover his case and that the

compulsory medical treatment in question therefore also constituted an

unlawful interference with his right to respect for his private life

as guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.  He contests that

he consented to any of the above measures or that his guardian's

consent was obtained.  In any event he challenges the validity of the

guardian's appointment.

        The Commission considers that, combined, the measures applied

to the applicant require further examination under Articles 3 and 8

(Art. 3, 8) of the Convention, having regard to the long period during

which they were upheld and the fact that the compulsory feeding

involved methods which, according to the Government, were unusual from

the medical point of view.  The Commission also notes the dispute

between the parties as to the lawfulness of these measures and as

regards the consent by the applicant or his guardian.  In the latter

respect the Commission finally notes the very general nature of the

guardian's declaration of December 1979 and the fact that it was

apparently not renewed by the new guardian appointed in 1983.

        The Commission considers that in these circumstances the

applicant's above complaint cannot be rejected as being manifestly

ill-founded, but requires determination as to the merits, no other

ground of inadmissibility having been established.

c)      Correspondence and receipt of information

7.      The applicant complains of unjustified interferences with his

correspondence and his freedom of expression including the right to

receive information.  He invokes Articles 8 and 10 (Art. 8, 10) of the

Convention which read as follows:

Article 8 (Art. 8):

"1.      Everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.      There shall be no interference by a public authority

with the exercise of this right except such as is in

accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public safety

or the economic well-being of the country, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others."

Article 10 (Art. 10):

"1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This

right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive

and impart information and ideas without interference by

public authority and regardless of frontiers.  ...

2.  The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such

formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are

prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity

or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime,

for the protection of health or morals, for the protection

of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the

disclosure of information received in confidence, or for

maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

        In this context the applicant has also referred to Article 9

(Art. 9) of the Convention (freedom of thought and conscience), but the

Commission finds no issue under this provision.

        The Commission notes that during the relevant period the whole

of the applicant's voluminous correspondence was subjected to

restrictions.  Until 6 November 1980 the applicant was detained on

remand and therefore his correspondence was controlled by the

investigating judge pursuant to Sections 183 et seq. of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.  In addition, as the applicant was detained in a

mental hospital, his correspondence and his contacts with the outside

world in general were under the control of the director of the

hospital, pursuant to Section 51 of the Hospitals Act.  It appears

that after 6 November 1980 the Hospitals Act was exclusively

applicable by virtue of Article III of the Execution of Criminal

Judgments Adaptation Act.

        The actual measures applied involved, on the one hand, a

restriction of writing material imposed by the hospital, and, on the

other, an agreement between the hospital and the applicant's guardian

as to the manner in which the applicant's correspondence should be

controlled.  Under this agreement the guardian was given wide powers

to withhold letters, except those addressed to the guardianship court

or concerning the guardian's person, and those addressed to the

applicant's defence counsel.  The Government submit that under this

system all letters addressed to authorities which had any prospects

of success were in fact transmitted, and that for the rest the

restrictions were justified in the applicant's own interest, in

particular to protect him against adverse effects of querulous

petitions.

        In this respect the Government invoke the necessity to protect

the applicant's health and the rights and reputation of others.  They

thus admit an interference with the right to respect for correspondence

under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, but claim that this interference

was justified under paragraph 2 (Art. 8-2) of this Article.

        As to the alleged interference with the applicant's freedom of

expression under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, the Commission

considers that the issue is absorbed by Article 8 (Art. 8) insofar as the

applicant wished to impart information and ideas to others through the

above-mentioned correspondence.  The Commission notes, however, that

the applicant was also subjected to restrictions of his right to

receive information.  As the Government admit, his access to books,

journals, radio and television was regulated and, at least

temporarily, restricted by the hospital under the same provision of

the Hospitals Act which was also applied regarding the control of his

correspondence.  There has accordingly been an interference with the

applicant's rights under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) to this extent.

As regards the justification of this interference, the Government rely

on the same reasons as under Article 8 (Art. 8).

        The applicant, on the other hand, claims that the above

interferences with his rights under Articles 8 and 10 (Art. 8, 10)

were not justified and, in particular, that the Hospitals Act provided

no sufficient legal basis for these measures.

        The Commission notes that under both Articles the questions

arise whether the measures in question were "in accordance with" or

"prescribed by" law and whether their scope was proportionate to a

legitimate aim recognised in these Articles and thus "necessary in a

democratic society".  The applicant's complaints in this respect

require further examination and cannot be rejected as being manifestly

ill-founded.  No other grounds of inadmissibility have been

established.

d)      Access to court and effective remedies

8.      The applicant complains of unjustified interferences with his

right to access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)

first sentence of the Convention, which reads as follows:

     "In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone

is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by

law. ..."

        The Commission notes that it was one of the main purposes

of the measures taken against the applicant, including his legal

incapacitation and the control of his correspondence, to prevent

vexatious litigation.  This interference can only raise an issue under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) insofar as his access to court was impeded with

regard to proceedings which determined his "civil rights and

obligations".  However, most of the applicant's correspondence

addressed to the Austrian authorities and courts concerned matters

which did not relate to such rights.  This is true in particular of

the many instances where he sought the institution of criminal

proceedings.  It is constant case-law of the Convention organs that

there is no right under the Convention, and in particular under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), to have criminal proceedings instituted

against third persons.

        To some extent the above measures also applied to the conduct

of civil litigation.  After the appointment of a guardian the

applicant was no longer able to conduct such proceedings himself

without the latter's consent.  The Government submit that in some

cases civil litigation was conducted with the consent of the guardian.

The applicant has not referred to any concrete instances where the

guardian unjustifiedly refused his consent to such proceedings during

the period under consideration.  In any event 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 such cases it

may also be justified that access to the relevant files be restricted.

In the Commission's opinion this is compatible with the aim and

purpose of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).  The Commission therefore finds no

indication of a violation of the Convention in this respect and

accordingly rejects this part of the application as being manifestly

ill-founded.

9.      The Commission is of the opinion that 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.  The applicant never accepted the

appointment of a guardian for him and disagreed with practically all

measures taken by the guardian.  In its partial decision of 10 March

1988 the Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaints

concerning the procedure whereby the guardian was appointed (failure

to observe the six months' time-limit under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention).  It is true that the applicant claims that proceedings

concerning the validity of the appointment are still pending.

However, they do not concern the period under consideration here which

ends on 14 November 1984, the date of the applicant's release.  In the

present case the only issue which remains to be examined is whether,

during the period between 27 May 1978 and 14 November 1984, a genuine

and serious dispute arose between the applicant and his guardian as to

the performance of the latter's duties and, if so, whether this

dispute was determined by an independent and impartial tribunal in

conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

        The Commission notes that the guardian's activities were under

the constant supervision of the competent guardianship court, as

provided for by Austrian law.  As the proceedings in question were

non-contentious proceedings, they were conducted in a rather informal

way.  It appears that each time the guardianship court approved the

reports submitted by the guardian and there is nothing to suggest that

the procedure followed was not in conformity with Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1). The only issue which could arise concerns the fact that

the proceedings in question were not conducted in public, but this is

covered by the Austrian reservation concerning Article 6 (Art. 6).

        The Commission further notes from the information provided by

the Government that on two occasions during the relevant period the

guardianship court appointed curators (Kollisionskuratoren) for the

applicant in view of the latter's complaints concerning the handling

of his correspondence.  The proceedings in question did not lead to

concrete decisions as it turned out that essentially the applicant

complained only of the decision preventing him from handling his own

affairs and the fact that as a consequence a guardian was appointed to

manage those affairs.  The Commission considers that this way of

proceeding did not infringe the applicant's right of access to court.

        It follows that this part of the application is also

manifestly ill-founded.

10.     The applicant also complains that regarding the conditions of

his detention, including his medical treatment, the censorship of his

correspondence and the refusal of access to information, he did not

have an effective remedy before a national authority as required by

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

        "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth

in this Convention are violated shall have an effective

remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that

the violation has been committed by persons acting in an

official capacity."

        The Commission finds Article 13 (Art. 13) applicable in

relation to the applicant's complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 10

(Art. 3, 8, 10) of the Convention, insofar as these complaints have

been found admissible.  In this respect the applicant could arguably

claim a violation of these provisions, and therefore he was, in

principle, entitled to an effective domestic remedy for the purpose of

determining the well-foundedness of such a claim.

        The Commission notes that the Hospitals Act, under which the

relevant measures were taken, does not provide for any specific

remedy.  The Government submit that, while it is questionable whether

the applicant himself could have lodged a complaint against these

measures with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), he

could have tried to do so with the assistance of his guardian.  The

applicant denies this, observing that the Constitutional Court has

never dealt with complaints of this sort and that legal doctrine in

Austria tends to the view that such complaints cannot be brought

before the Constitutional Court.

        The Commission considers that in these circumstances an issue

arises under Article 13 (Art. 13) as to whether an effective remedy was

available to the applicant, even acting with the assistance of his

guardian, to challenge the justification of the above measures.  This

part of the application therefore cannot be declared manifestly

ill-founded, but requires examination as to the merits, no other ground

of inadmissibility having been established.

e)      Other complaints

11.     The applicant complains that the Austrian authorities did not

allow his repatriation to Hungary, and that this amounted to an

interference with his right under Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4

(P4-2-2) to the Convention "to leave any country".  However, the

Commission notes that the applicant's efforts to be repatriated were

unsuccessful because the Hungarian authorities did not allow his

return under the condition formulated by the Austrian authorities.

Insofar as Austria is responsible for making the repatriation

dependent on such a condition, the Commission considers that the

restriction of the applicant's right to leave that country was covered

by paragraph 3 of the above Article, being a measure necessary in a

democratic society for the protection of health.

12.     The applicant also complains that because of his Hungarian

origin he was discriminated against contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of

the Convention.  The Commission accepts that Article 14 (Art. 14) could be

applicable in the present case in combination with one or more of the

other provisions of the Convention which the applicant has invoked.

However, it finds no indication that any of the impugned measures was

taken against the applicant because of his national origin.

This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded.

13.     The applicant finally invokes Articles 17 and 18 (Art. 17, 18)

of the Convention, claiming that the Austrian authorities have abused

their powers for illegitimate purposes.  The Commission finds no

indication that this was in fact the case and therefore rejects the

applicant's complaints in this respect as being manifestly

ill-founded.

f)      Alleged interference with the applicant's right of petition

14.     The applicant alleges that the Austrian authorities hindered

the effective exercise of his right to petition the Commission.  He

invokes Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention which reads

as follows:

"       The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the

Secretary-General of the Council of Europe from any person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming

to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting

Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention, provided that

the High Contracting Party against which the complaint has been

lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of the

Commission to receive such petitions.  Those of the High Contracting

Parties who have made such a declaration undertake not to hinder in

any way the effective exercise of this right."

        The applicant submits that the restriction of writing material

and the control of his correspondence was of general scope and also

affected his possibility of communicating freely with the Commission.

He further complains that he was not allowed access to his files and

thereby prevented from substantiating his complaints to the Commission.

The Government deny this, claiming that the applicant could write

freely to the Commission at all times.  They do not contest, however,

that letters for which the applicant refused to pay postage may not

have been forwarded to the Commission.  As regards access to files,

the Government admit restrictions, but claim that the applicant would

have been allowed to have any specific document which he intended to

use for the Convention proceedings.

        In any event, despite certain difficulties the applicant has

been able to effectively put his case before the Commission, and

therefore the Commission finds no further action required.

        For these reasons, the Commission

1.      DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,

        the applicant's complaints:

a)      that the applicant's detention until 9 April 1980 was not

        justified under Article 5 para. 1 (c) and (e) (Art. 5-1-c) of the

        Convention and that, contrary to Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of

        the Convention, he was not brought to trial within a

        reasonable time;

b)      that the applicant's detention as a person of unsound

        mind after 9 April 1980 was not justified under Article 5

        para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of the Convention throughout the time

        until his release on 14 November 1984;

c)      that after 9 April 1980 the applicant was not able to obtain

        judicial review of the continued lawfulness of this detention

        in conformity with Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4);

d)      that the conditions of his detention, including, in

        particular, his medical treatment, amounted to inhuman or

        degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) or to an

        unjustified interference with his right to respect for his

        private life under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;

e)      that there have been unjustified interferences with his

        right to respect for his correspondence (Article 8) and

        his right to receive information (Article 10); and

f)      that there was no effective remedy to challenge the measures

        under d) and e) above (Article 13);

2.      DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE;

3.      DECIDES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED

        INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF

        INDIVIDUAL PETITION.

Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

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