[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2137/64 [1964] ECHR 5 (07 July 1964) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1964/2137_64.html Cite as: [1964] ECHR 5

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The Applicant is a Polish citizen born in 1927. He has several previous
convictions.

It appears that he was arrested in 1962 under suspicion of having
committed theft and that in 1963, he was convicted by the Regional
Court (Landgericht) of H and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months
imprisonment.

He alleges that his is not guilty of the crimes concerned and that,
even if he were, he should have been convicted for embezzlement
(Fundunterschlagung) and not for theft (Diebstahl). He further alleges
that one of the lay judges went to sleep during the hearing and that
the Court refused to hear six witnesses whom the defence wished to
call. In his reply of 1963 to the Applicant's appeal, the Public
Prosecutor, having heard witnesses, stated that the lay judge in
question had been fully awake during the entire hearing of the case and
had, indeed, put several questions to the parties. He further stated
that the lawyer acting on behalf of the Applicant expressly renounced
his right to call the above witnesses.

In 1963 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) of A rejected the
Applicant's appeal and in 1964 the Federal Constitutional Court
rejected a constitutional complaint lodged by him.

In the meanwhile, the Applicant lodged a complaint against the judges
of the Regional Court of H accusing them of illegally depriving him of
his liberty. This complaint was rejected by the Public Prosecutor of
H in 1963 and by the Supreme Public Prosecutor (General-Staatsanwalt)
of A in 1964.

Whereas, in respect of the above proceedings, the Applicant alleges
violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and he states that the
lawyer appointed by the Court to act on his behalf grossly neglected
his professional duties.

Furthermore, he states that in 1963 he gave to the prison authorities
a letter for dispatch to the Secretary to the Commission. In 1963 he
was informed that the letter had been confiscated (beschlagnahmt) by
a decision of the above Court on the ground that it contained
slanderous statements. He maintains that he did no more than expose the
truth in respect of the proceedings which led to his conviction.

In 1964 the Respondent Government admitted that the Applicant's above
letter had, in fact, been confiscated. It forwarded to the Commission
at the same time, a copy of the letter concerned.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings before the Regional Court of A,
the Federal Court and the Constitutional Court, an examination of the
case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex
officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set forth in the Convention and, in particular, the
provisions of Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) invoked by the Applicant;

Whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas, in respect of the confiscation of the Applicant's letter by
the decision of the Regional Court of H in 1963, the Commission has
carefully considered this question in the light of the last sentence
of Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1);

Whereas the Commission considers that this confiscation hindered the
Applicant in the presentation of his petition and thereby constituted
a violation of this provision of Article 25 (Art. 25);

Whereas, however, the Commission has had regard to the facts that the
Respondent Government had at a later date forwarded to the Commission
the said letter and had itself taken appropriate measures to ensure in
the future the full observance of Article 25 (Art. 25) by the domestic
authorities concerned;

Whereas the Commission does not consider that the Applicant had finally
been frustrated in the submission of his present Application and
therefore decides in this case to take no further steps.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.