AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 13284/87
                      by G. & D.M.
                      against the United Kingdom


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 15 October 1987, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  J.A. FROWEIN
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J.-C. SOYER
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  J. CAMPINOS
             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 1 September 1987
by G. & D.M. against the United Kingdom and registered
on 12 October 1987 under file N° 13284/87;

        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&S

        The first applicant, a businessman born in 1920 who has both
German and British nationality, lives in London.  His wife, the second
applicant, has British nationality and resides in London

        This is the first applicant's fifth application and the second
applicant's second application to the Commission.

I.

        Application No. 6309/73 against the Federal Republic of
Germany, which was introduced by the first applicant on 16 June 1973,
concerned the refusal by the German authorities to grant the first
applicant restitution in form of a loan.  The application was
registered after the first applicant had been informed by the
Secretariat of the conditions for filing an application.  The
Commission declared the application inadmissible on 12 December 1974
on the ground that, while such restitution proceedings could relate to
a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention, the application was inadmissible under Articles 26 and 27
para. 3 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The decision was sent to the first applicant on 19 March 1975.

II.

        On 22 March 1975, the first applicant visited, and wrote to,
the Secretariat, claiming that in its previous decision the Commission
had overlooked certain elements, and asking whether he could re-submit
his papers.  The Secretariat explained to the first applicant the
conditions for filing an application, but the first applicant
persisted in pursuing his case.  It was then registered as Application
No. 7745/76.  In this application, he complained, in respect of the
Federal Republic of Germany, that the German authorities had refused to
grant him restitution by means of a loan.  In respect of the United
Kingdom, he complained of the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the
procedures in which legal aid had been granted.  On 11 July 1977 the
application was declared inadmissible, partly as being substantially
the same as the previous application within the meaning of Article 27
para. 1 (b) of the Convention, partly as being incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2, in that in civil proceedings no right to legal aid
was as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Convention.  This decision was sent to the first applicant on 13 July
1977.

III.

        On 22 February 1982 the first applicant introduced a new
application with the Commission against the United Kingdom which was
registered under file No. 9875/82.  Therein, he complained inter alia
that his lawyers had accepted a settlement in a negligence case brought by
him against a law firm and had therefore refused to carry out their
duties and thus barred him from pursuing his case in court.  He
relied on Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention.  On 4 July
1983 the application was declared inadmissible as being manifestly
ill-founded since it did not generally disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

        In parallel proceedings, the second applicant introduced on 18
May 1982 Application No. 9876/82 against the United Kingdom.  This
application concerned her retirement as a temporary officer from the
Civil Service, without having been reinstated as a civil servant, and
thus not being entitled to a pension.  Before the Commission she
complained under Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention that
her case was dismissed by the courts in domestic proceedings on the
grounds of her inability to act without legal help in court.  She
also complained of the manner in which the lawyers had handled her
case.  On 4 July 1983 this application was declared inadmissible as
being manifestly ill-founded, since it did not generally disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.

        Decisions Nos. 9875/82 and 9876/82 were sent to the applicants
on 24 August 1983.

IV.

        On 31 August 1983 the first applicant submitted further
statements to the Commission, whereupon he was informed by the
Secretariat that these issues had been dealt with by the Commission in
the previous two applications.  On 24 September 1983 he informed the
Secretary that he intended to lodge a fresh complaint.  He was then
informed of the conditions for filing an application with the
Commission.  On 6 December 1983 the applicant also attempted to
introduce proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

        Following further correspondence with the Secretariat and the
first applicant's second visit to the Secretariat in Strasbourg, a
new application which was considered as being introduced on 28
September 1984 was registered under file No. 11220/84 against the
United Kingdom.  This application originated in bankruptcy notices
which the applicant's solicitors had brought against the first applicant
and, apparently, the second applicant for non-payment of outstanding
monies.  Eventually, a disciplinary tribunal found that the solicitors
had not behaved in accordance with professional standards.  The
bankruptcies were subsequently discharged.  Before the Commission, the
first applicant complained of the unfairness of these and other
proceedings as well as of the English legal system, criticising
inter alia "the Law Society's monopoly on legal aid" and alleging
"the total lack of accountability ... in the whole of the British
legal profession".

        On 3 March 1986 the Commission declared the application
inadmissible.   Insofar as the complaint related to general matters
concerning the English legal system, the Commission found that this
part of the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the
provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2.
In respect of the complaint that the first applicant was denied legal
aid the Commission found that this complaint was partly substantially
the same as Application No. 9875/82 within the meaning of Article 27
para. 1 (b) of the Convention, and partly manifestly ill-founded since
adequate redress had been afforded in the domestic proceedings for the
applicant's complaints.  This decision was sent to the first applicant
on 8 April 1986.

V.


         On 2 December 1986 the first applicant wrote a letter to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe in which he inter alia
requested his complaints to be admitted.

        In an undated letter which was received by the Secretariat on
13 March 1987 the applicants renewed their various complaints against
persons and authorities in the United Kingdom.

        Between 1 and 30 September 1987 the first applicant addressed
himself directly to various members of the Commission.  He complained,
apparently in the name of the second applicant, of the Commission's
decision in Application No. 9876/82 of 4 July 1983, in particular that
"the variance between that Decision and our Statement is so great that
each could be describing entirely different cases".  In their letters
the applicants requested the members of the Commission for comments on
how they should now proceed.

        These submissions have been transmitted to the Commission's
Secretary who, in accordance with Rule 12 (b) of the Commission's
Rules of Procedure, is the channel of all communications concerning
the Commission.  They constitute a voluminous file from which it
appears that the first applicant's complaints originate in relations
with a bank as a result of which he was allegedly put out of business.
He then apparently brought proceedings against the bank.  Later the
first applicant brought a negligence claim against solicitors acting
for him.  In these proceedings he was represented by new solicitors
who accepted a settlement with which the first applicant apparently
disagreed.  The other solicitors introduced bankruptcy proceedings
against him, though the bankruptcies were eventually discharged.

        The second applicant's complaints originate in, and partly
concern, the fact that she was deprived of a civil servant's pension.

&-COMPLAINTS&S

        In their various submissions, the applicants complain of the
alleged unfairness of the resulting domestic proceedings in which they
have been involved.  They also complain, inter alia, of the
"etiquette restrictive practices" in the English legal profession, the
alleged Law Society monopolies, and the legal profession's freedom
from accountability for the consequences.  The first applicant has
submitted that the British legal system "can suppress any action at
will".  The applicants rely on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

&_THE LAW&S

        The applicants complain of the alleged unfairness of the
procedure in which they were involved as well as of the alleged
deficiencies of the British legal system, in particular the British
legal profession.  They rely on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

        The Commission has carefully examined the above applications
and the separate complaints as they have been submitted by the
applicants.  It has also considered these complaints against the
background of the applicants' previous applications Nos. 9875/82,
9876/82 and 11220/84 and notes that the subject matters of the
applications submitted by the applicants are essentially similar or
related to each other in that the matters complained of concern, on
the one hand, domestic litigation in which the applicants were
involved, and, on the other hand, the alleged deficiencies of the
British legal system, in particular the British legal profession.

        The Commission further notes that since 1973, in connection
with Applications Nos. 6309/73 and 7745/76, the applicants have had
repeated opportunity to acquaint themselves with the procedure of the
Commission.  Furthermore, on numerous occasions the first applicant
has been informed in detail, in the Secretariat's correspondence and
in personal discussions with members of the Secretariat, as well as
with the Secretary, of the operation of the Convention.  All these
communications, as well as the Commission's decisions on the
admissibility of their previous applications must have made it clear
to the applicants that their present application is either
substantially the same as the matters already examined by the
Commission and contains no relevant new information within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, or that it is
manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        Having regard to this, and to the applicants' submissions, the
Commission finds that the applicants have abused their right of
petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2), in fine, of the
Convention.  It refers in this respect to Nos. 5070/71, 5171/71 and
5186/71, Dec. 10.7.72, Collection 42 pp. 58 ff., and Nos. 5145/71,
5246/71, 5333/72, 5586/72, and 5587/72 as well as No. 5332/72,
Dec. 2.4.73, Collection 43 pp. 152 f., in which the Commission, declaring
the applications to be abusive, made the following statement:

        "It cannot be the task of the Commission, a body which
        was set up under the Convention 'to ensure the observance
        of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting
        Parties in the present Convention' to deal with a succession
        of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary
        work which is incompatible with its real functions, and which
        hinders it in carrying them out."

        The Commission finds that the same considerations apply to the
application of the present applicants.  It follows that the present
application constitutes an abuse of the right of petition 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)