[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 GERMANY - 2116/64 [1966] ECHR 8 (17 December 1966) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1966/2116_64.html Cite as: [1966] ECHR 8

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

THE FACTS

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

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1897 and at present living
at Essen.

The Applicant's lengthy statements may be summarised as follows:

He is a disabled miner living on a pension. He has made repeated
attempts to secure the increased pension provided by law for cases of
silicosis, from the Mining Employers Association for Workmen's
Compensation (Bergbau-Berufsgenossenschaft). It appears that his claim
for such a pension was rejected on ... 1958, by the Social Court of
Appeal (Landessozialgericht) North-Rhine-Westphalia. An application
to reopen these proceedings (Restitutionsklage) made by the Applicant
to the same Court was apparently withdrawn by him on ... 1962. The
Applicant also brought proceedings against the Ruhr Miners
Association (Ruhrknappschaft). He has supplied no information about
these latter proceedings, except that they were decided by the Social
Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on ... 1959.

The Applicant states that over many years he has invented processes
important to the mechanisation and safety of the mining industry.

Whereas some of these inventions were accepted, many were not. Because
of this, the Applicant published statements concerning various persons
whom he believed to be responsible for rejecting his ideas.

Proceedings were brought against him in the District Court
(Amtsgericht) Essen for defamation (Beleidigung). It appears that
during the hearing the in the District Court on ... 1957, the Applicant
withdrew his remarks. He was also medically examined, in relation to
these proceedings, but was found to be fully responsible for his
actions.

The Applicant states that he has made a number of complaints regarding
his inventions but the only details which he gives of these complaints
are that the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), Munich, gave
a decision on ... 1964.

In regard to his claims for a pension the Applicant complains that the
judicial decisions have been based on false medical opinions. He states
that the decision of ... 1962, (when he apparently withdrew his
application for reopening proceedings) was contrary to law, because he
was not provided by the Court with a lawyer (Pflichtverteidiger). He
claims to have asked the Court on five occasions for the services of
a lawyer, and to have been refused each time. He claims that all the
defendants are motivated by a desire for revenge because he is able to
expose many cases of false evidence given on their behalf in similar
matters.

In regard to his inventions, the Applicant claims that since 1943 these
have been stolen from him. He states that he has repeatedly sought
recognition of his rights over the years, but that he has never had a
proper judicial hearing. He states that he has made thirty complaints
(Klageakte) and that he has sent "mountains" of files to the Public
Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) Essen.

He further complains that his lawyers, as well as the Patent Office
in Munich, are acting against him. In relation to the judgment of ...
1964, of the Federal Patent Court, the Applicant complains that three
judges of the Appeal Chamber (Beschwerde-Senat) are incompetent.

The Applicant also makes allegations of incompetence against the
Government, various Secretaries of State, political figures, the
Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof), the Public Prosecutor's Office in
Essen and lawyers in Essen generally.

The Applicant asks the Commission to obtain a lawyer for him, as he
wishes his cases to be reopened and his documents and proofs examined.
He also wishes criminal charges to be brought against the persons who
are suppressing his ideas.

The Applicant states that he wishes the Commission to assist him under
Articles 8, 13 and 26 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that he has not been
granted an increased pension, it is to be observed that the Convention,
under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and
freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under
Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation of one
of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject
of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation
or group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the
Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right to a pension is not
as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Convention;
whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decisions
Nos. 93/55, 1723/62, 1788/63, 1988/63; whereas no circumstances have
been shown to exist which call for an examination of the questions
relating to Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) to the Convention (see
Commission's decision in Application No. 2310/64); whereas it follows
that thispart of the Application is incompatible with the provisions
of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), ofthe Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings relating to the Applicant's claim
for a pension and in particular relating to his complaint that he was
not provided with a lawyer to pursue these claims, the question arises
whether the right to an increased pension of this kind is to be
considered as a "civil right" within the meaning of paragraph (1) of
Article 6 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention; whereas however the Commission
does not find it necessary to determine the question in the present
case;

Whereas it feels an examination of the case as it has been submitted
does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)
of the Convention; whereas it follows that in any event the Application
is in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article
27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed as
securing a reopening of the proceedings relating to his unsuccessful
claims for patents and of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer for
this purpose, it is to be observed that the Convention, under the
terms of Article 1 (Art. 1) guarantees only the rights and freedoms set
forth in Section I of the Convention and whereas, under Article 25,
paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), in only the alleged violation of one of
those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of
an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or
group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the
Commission ratione materiae; whereas the rights alleged above are
not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by
the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its
previous decisions (for example No. 1982/63 R. v. Austria);

Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed against
lawyers who were representing him in proceedings relating to his claims

for patents, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention
that the sole task of the Commission is to ensure the observance of the
engagements undertaken in the Convention by the High Contracting
Parties, being those members of the Council of Europe which have signed
the Convention and deposited their instruments of ratification;
whereas, moreover, it appears from Article 25, paragraph (1)
(Art. 25-1) of the Convention that the Commission can properly admit
an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be
the victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention by one of
the Parties which have accepted this competence of the Commission;
whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission has
no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against
private individuals;

Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible
with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph
(Art. 27-2) (2) (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Volume 6, pages 348, 356);

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that criminal
proceedings have not been instituted against various private
individuals it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms
of Article 1 (Art. 1),guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth
in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25,
paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation of one of those
rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an
application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or
group of individuals; whereas otherwise its examination is outside the
competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right to
have criminal proceedings instituted against private individuals is not
as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its
constant jurisprudence (for example Application 1599/62 - Yearbook of
the European Convention on Human Rights Volume 6, pages 348, 356);
whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible
with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the Application, an examination
of the case as it has been submitted, does not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention
and in particular in Articles 6, 8 or 13 (Art. 6, 8, or 13); whereas
it follows that this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.