AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 12946/87
                      by P.
                      against the Federal Republic of Germany


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 9 March 1988, the following members being present:

             MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J.A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                  C.L. ROZAKIS
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             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 17 March 1987
by P. the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 26 May 1987
under file N° 12946/87;

        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, a German national born in 1920, is a lawyer and
notary public practising in W. (North-Rhine Westphalia).  Before the
Commission he is represented by his partner Dr. N.

        In 1950 the applicant was admitted to the bars of the Werne
District Court (Amtsgericht) and of the Münster Regional Court
(Landgericht).

        Following an administrative reorganisation in the Werne and
Münster areas the district of the Werne District Court, until then
part of the district of the Münster Regional Court, became part of the
district of the Dortmund Regional Court with effect from 1 January
1975.  The applicant was then admitted to the bar of the Dortmund
Regional Court, and, for a transitional period expiring on 31 December
1984, continued to be admitted to the bar of the Münster Regional
Court, simultaneously.

        His attempts to have his simultaneous admission to the Münster
Regional Court Bar extended after that date were to no avail.  His
action was eventually dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice
(Bundesgerichtshof), sitting as a Bar Appeals Tribunal (Senat
für Anwaltssachen), on 10 November 1986.  The Court found in particular
that the requirements under the Federal Lawyers Act (Bundesrechts-
anwaltsordnung) for the prolongation of such an admission were not
fulfilled in the applicant's case.

        On 29 January 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to accept the applicant's
constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) on the ground that it
offered no prospects of success.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complains that the reorganisation of the court
districts and the refusal of the German authorities to prolong his
simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court interfered with his
relationship to his clients and resulted in a decrease of his income
and the good will value of his practice.  He considers that these
measures amount to inhumanity and violate his right to property under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that the German Court decisions not to
prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Bar following the
reorganisation of certain court districts amounts to inhumanity.

        However, the Commission, while understanding that the
applicant's exclusion from the bar of a court to which he was admitted
for a considerable period of time may cause some hardship to him,
finds that there is nothing to suggest that this situation amounts to
an "inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention.

        This part of the application must therefore be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art.
27-2) of the Convention.

2.      The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1)to the Convention that the refusal of the German authorities to
prolong his simultaneous admission to the Münster Regional Court
violates his right to property.

        It is true that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) secures to
everyone the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

        However, in the present case, the Commission notes that
following the reorganisation of the court districts in 1975 the
applicant was only for a transitional period of ten years admitted
simultaneously to the Dortmund and the Münster Regional Court.  After
expiry of this transitional period the applicant failed in his
attempt to have his admission to the Münster Bar prolonged.

        The Commission finds that the applicant has not shown that he
had under German law and in particular the Federal Lawyers Act a right
to have that admission prolonged after the expiry of the transitional
period which might entitle him, with regard to the termination of this
admission, to invoke the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his
possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

        It follows that this part of the application is also
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



Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission



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