Application No. 13770/88
                      by Z. M.
                      against the Federal Republic of Germany

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 10 July 1989, the following members being present:

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

             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 22 October 1986
by Z. M. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 15
April 1988 under file No. 13770/88;

        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 of the case, as they have been submitted by the
parties, may be summarised as follows:

        The applicant, born in 1955, is a Hungarian national.  Since
the applicant entered the Federal Republic of Germany in 1975 he was
repeatedly in psychiatric treatment.  When lodging his application he
was detained in a mental institution in Düren after a decision by the
Cologne Regional Court (Landgericht) in 1983.

        The present part of his application relates to proceedings
before the Aachen Regional Court, in which the applicant's request to
be released on probation from detention was dismissed on 7 July 1986.
In these and the following unsuccessful appeal proceedings the
applicant was not represented by counsel.  On 10 February 1987 the
Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to
admit the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungs-
beschwerde) on the ground that it offered no prospect of success.


        The applicant complained that the Aachen Regional Court's
decision of 7 July 1986 not to release him on probation was wrong, and
also of the proceedings concerned.  He invoked Articles 2 to 14, 17 and
18 of the Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2
of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.


        The application was introduced on 22 October 1986 and
registered on 15 April 1988.

        On 12 October 1988 the Commission decided that, in accordance
with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, the part of the
application related to the proceedings before the Aachen Regional
Court and the Cologne Court of Appeal in 1986 be brought to the notice
of the respondent Government and that they be invited to submit,
within a time limit of 10 weeks, written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 5 para. 4
(Art. 5-4) of the Convention concerning this part of the application.

        The Commission declared the remainder of the application
inadmissible in a partial decision of 12 October 1988.

        The observations of the respondent Government were submitted
on 10 January 1989.

        On 24 January 1989 the applicant was requested to submit
observations in reply before 10 March 1989.  In a further letter of
the Secretariat of 29 March 1989, it was noted that he had not
submitted his observations in time, and recalled that he might request
legal aid.  Furthermore, the applicant was warned about the
consequences under Rule 44 para. 1 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure.  He was sent a second reminder by registered mail on
26 April 1989.  The applicant, whose last letter to the Commission was
dated 1 May 1988, has not reacted to the above letters from the


        The Commission finds that the applicant's failure to comply
with the Commission's request to submit observations in reply before
10 March 1989, and to react to the further letters of the Secretariat
of 29 March and 26 April 1989, leads to the conclusion that he does not
intend to pursue his application.

        The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a
general character affecting the observance of the Convention which
necessitate the further examination of this case.

        For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

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