The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
18 July 1986, the following members being present:

                    MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                        J.A. FROWEIN
                        F. ERMACORA
                        S. TRECHSEL
                        B. KIERNAN
                        A. WEITZEL
                        J.C. SOYER
                        H.G. SCHERMERS
                        H. DANELIUS
                        G. BATLINER
                        H. VANDENBERGHE
                    Sir Basil HALL

                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 31 January 1984 by
R.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered
on 7 August 1985 under file No. 11687/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may
be summarised as follows:

The applicant is a German citizen resident in Mörfelden-Waldorf near
Frankfurt.  In the proceedings before the Commission, she is
represented by Mr. Wenger, a lawyer practising in Frankfurt.

In 1982, following a car accident with one Mr. St., the applicant
instituted civil proceedings before the Gerau District Court
(Amtsgericht) against both the respective insurance company and
Mr. St. as the insured person claiming compensation for damages and
interest thereon.

On 13 April 1983, the Gerau District Court ordered a certain amount to
be paid to the applicant, though it omitted to rule on the interest.

On 27 May 1983, the same court rejected in an independent decision the
applicant's request to have the above-mentioned decision corrected
with regard to the interest.  The court held that the applicant's aim
to modify the judgment could not be achieved by means of the requested
correction according to S. 319 of the German Code of Civil Procedure
(Zivilprozessordnung) in view of the fact that that provision only
covered errors in writing or calculation and not errors in fact or in
law.  The court furthermore observed that in any event the applicant
would have had first to request a correction of the statement of facts
in the judgment of 13 April 1983 in order to include the claim of
interest.  Such a request would meanwhile be out of time.

On 28 November 1983, the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) dismissed the applicant's constitutional
complaint as not offering prospects of success.

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention that the proceedings before the Gerau District Court
were not fair.  She alleges that the court did not read the complete
case file and overlooked the claim of interest in the first decision
of 13 April 1983.

2.      The applicant furthermore complains that the court did not
correct the mistake in the subsequent proceedings.  She alleges an
unfair hearing in breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention that the civil proceedings before the Gerau District
Court in April 1983 have not been fair in as much as that court did
not take cognizance of the complete case file.

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not these
facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as, under
Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter
after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the
generally recognised rules of international law.

The Commission observes that the correction of a judgment according to
S. 319 of the German Code of Civil Procedure only applies in cases of
evident errors in writing or calculation.  In the present case, the
Gerau District Court dismissed the applicant's request to correct the
judgment on the ground that the applicant alleged the omission of her
claim of interest which could not be considered as simply a writing
error nor could it be added without a prior change of the statement of
facts in separate proceedings.  The Commission moreover notes that the
applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, did not lodge an appeal
(Berufung) against the first decision.

The Commission recalls its constant jurisprudence according to which
there is no exhaustion of domestic remedies where a domestic appeal is
not admitted because of a procedural mistake (see e.g. No. 6878/75,
Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 79).  In the instant case, the applicant
failed to choose the correct legal procedure either to have the
statement of facts changed prior to the request of correction under
S. 319 of the German Code of Civil Procedure or to institute appeal
proceedings in time.  The applicant has therefore not exhausted the
remedies available to her under German law.  Moreover an examination
of the case does not disclose the existence of any special
circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to
the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting
the remedies at her disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as
to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and her application must in
this respect be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (art. 27-3)
of the Convention.

2.      The applicant furthermore complains under Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention that the Gerau District Court's decision
not to correct its previous judgment was unfair.

The Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (art. 19)
of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the
obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.  In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention (see No. 6172/73, Dec. 7.7.75, D.R. 3 p. 77).

It is true that in the present case the applicant also alleges that
the proceedings concerning the previous judgment were not fair within
the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

However, the Commission finds that there is nothing in the case file
to indicate that the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, could
not present her case properly, or that the proceedings were otherwise
unfairly conducted.  Moreover, the Commission observes that the court
was bound to dismiss the applicant's request according to S. 319 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.  This complaint does not therefore
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
forth in the Convention and specially in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 3 (art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission

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