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

                    MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                        E. BUSUTTIL
                        G. JÖRUNDSSON
                        S. TRECHSEL
                        B. KIERNAN
                        A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                        A. WEITZEL
                        J.C. SOYER
                        H.G. SCHERMERS
                        H. DANELIUS
                        G. BATLINER
                    Mrs G.H. THUNE
                    Sir Basil HALL
                    Mr. F. MARTINEZ

                    Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 24 March 1986 by K.P.
against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 26 March
1986 under file No. 12068/86;

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 applicant, a Tamil, is a citizen of Sri Lanka.  He was born in
1954 and is presently living at Bonn.  In the proceedings before the
Commission he is represented by Mr. N. Wingerter and others, lawyers
in Heilbronn.

On 6 August 1984 the applicant was convicted by the Heilbronn District
Court (Amtsgericht) of having violated the Act on Asylum Proceedings
(Asylverfahrensgesetz).  He was fined 50.- DM.

According to the findings of the court the applicant entered the
Federal Republic of Germany in 1979 and made a request to be granted
asylum.  The proceedings concerning this request were still pending
and the applicant was granted a provisional residence permit
(Aufenthaltsgestattung und Aufenthaltserlaubnis) limited to the
district (Stadt- und Landkreis) of Heilbronn.  On 30 November 1982 the
competent authorities at Heilbronn issued a document (Ausweis) to the
applicant called "residence permit for the Federal Republic of Germany
including the Land Berlin" for the purpose of the asylum proceedings.

On page 3 of the document the following restriction is indicated:

"Residence is limited to the district of Heilbronn.  Leaving this
district requires special authorisation by the Office for Foreigners
(Ausländerbehörde)".

On page 2 a bold faced typed warning states that violations of
conditions or restrictions are punishable.  Receipt of the document
has to be signed by the bearer.

In December 1982 the applicant was fined for a traffic offence
committed outside the district of Heilbronn.  He was therefore warned
by an officer of the Office for Foreigners when his residence permit
was prolonged in May 1983 that he was not allowed to leave the
district of Heilbronn.  Nevertheless on 23 September 1983 he travelled
to Stuttgart in order to fetch someone at the railway station.  He was
intercepted by a police control.

The court concluded that the applicant had thus violated Sections 35
(1) and 20 (2) of the Act on Asylum Proceedings and that he was
punishable as he must have been aware that he did not have the right
to leave the district of Heilbronn.  The Court moreover considered the
applicant's submissions that the restriction in question would violate
the freedom of movement as guaranteed by the German Basic Law
(Grundgesetz).  It found, however, that the restriction did not
violate the freedom of movement because the person concerned was free
to move within the district he was allowed to reside in.  The
legitimate purpose of the restriction was to enable the authorities to
supervise the activities of persons requesting asylum and to avoid
their going underground.

On 7 February 1985 the Heilbronn Regional Court (Landgericht)
dismissed both the applicant's and the Public Prosecutor's appeal
(Berufung).

The applicant's appeal was declared inadmissible because neither the
applicant himself nor his defence counsel attended the hearing on the
appeal.

With regard to the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor the Court
stated that the restriction in question did not violate constitutional
rights because the residence permit was only granted to the extent
necessary to enable the applicant to pursue his request for asylum.
There was neither necessity nor a constitutional requirement to allow
a person requesting asylum a more extensive right to travel in the
Federal Republic before asylum was in effect granted.  Insofar as the
Public Prosecution had argued that the incriminated act should be
considered as a misdemeanour (Vergehen) and not just as a regulatory
offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit) the appeal was considered to be
unfounded.

The applicant lodged a further appeal which was, on 10 October 1985,
declared inadmissible by the Stuttgart Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht).  This Court likewise dismissed on
27 November 1985 an appeal (Revision) lodged by the Public Prosecutor.
In rejecting the Prosecutor's appeal the Appellate Court also examined
in accordance with S. 301 of the Code on Criminal Procedure
(Strafprozessordnung) whether the judgment of 7 February 1985
contained errors of material law (sachlichrechtliche Mängel) to the
applicant's disadvantage.  Referring to a decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of 7 July 1983 it
stated in this context that it was compatible both with constitutional
and Convention rights to limit to certain districts residence permits
for persons requesting asylum.

The applicant submits that he did not lodge a constitutional complaint
as such remedy would have been ineffective in the light of the
existing case law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant considers that he was wrongly convicted and fined
because the limitation of his residence permit violates his freedom of
movement as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2). He also
invokes Articles 5, 8, 11 (art. 5), (art. 8), (art. 11) and 14
(art. 14) of the Convention and submits that limitations of the kind
in question are unnecessary in a democratic society and therefore
arbitrary.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
(P4-2) that he was fined in criminal proceedings for having violated
the obligation imposed on him in connection with a provisional
residence permit to remain within the district of the city of
Heilbronn pending the proceedings concerning his request to be granted
asylum.  Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) provides:

"Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that
territory have the right to freedom of movement and freedom to choose
his residence."

The Commission notes at the outset that before the respective German
Courts the applicant did not invoke Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
(P4-2).  He rather referred to provisions of the German Basic Law.  An
issue therefore arises as to whether the applicant has properly
exhausted the domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26
(art. 26) of the Convention.  The Commission nevertheless leaves this
question open since the above complaint is in any event manifestly
ill-founded for the following reasons.

The Commission notes that, in accordance with S. 17 para. 1 and S. 7
para. 1 of the German Aliens' Act, the applicant was only
provisionally permitted to stay in the district of the city of
Heilbronn pending the proceedings concerning his renewed requests for
asylum.

The Commission observes that Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4
(P4-2-1) secures the freedom of movement to persons "lawfully within the
territory of a State".  This condition refers to the domestic law of
the State concerned.  It is for the domestic law and organs to lay
down the conditions which must be fulfilled for a person's presence in
the territory to be considered "lawful".  The Commission, in this
respect, recalls its constant case-law according to which there is no
right of an alien to enter, reside or remain in a particular country,
as such, guaranteed by the Convention (cf. No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82,
D.R. 29 p. 205).  The Commission is of the opinion that aliens
provisionally admitted to a certain district of the territory of a
State, pending proceedings to determine whether or not they are
entitled to a residence permit under the relevant provisions of
domestic law, can only be regarded as "lawfully" in the territory as
long as they comply with the conditions to which their admission and
stay are subjected.

In the present case the applicant's provisional admission to the
territory of the Federal Republic of Germany is subject to the
condition that it extends only to the district of the city of
Heilbronn.  His "lawful" stay within the territory is, therefore,
geographically limited.  Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) does not
extend that right.

Consequently, the applicant's complaint that he is not granted
geographically unlimited permissions to stay within the territory of
the Federal Republic of Germany is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.      The applicant has also invoked Articles 5, 8, 11 (art. 5),
(art. 8), (art. 11) and 14 (art. 14) of the Convention in respect of
his complaint concerning the restriction of his freedom of movement.
However, the Commission finds that there is no appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in Articles 5, 8, 11
(art. 5), (art. 8), (art. 11) or 14 (art. 14) of 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

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)