THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The Applicant is a German national, born in 1922 and at present
detained in prison at Duisburg.

From his statements and from the documents submitted by the Applicant
it appears that a warrant for arrest was issued against him on ..
August, 1964 and he was detained on remand on .. August, 1964.  He
states that on .. September, 1964 he lodged an application with the
Regional Court (Landgericht) at Duisburg to have the reasons for his
detention examined (Haftprüfungsverfahren).  It appears that his lawyer
later withdrew this application upon receiving an undertaking from
the presiding judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Regional Court
that the Applicant would be brought to trial within 3 weeks. On ..
November, 1964, however, the Applicant lodged a second such application
with the Regional Court of Duisburg which was rejected on .. November,
1964.  An appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision to the Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf was dismissed on .. December, 1964.
On .. January, 1965, the Applicant lodged a third application with the
Regional Court of Duisburg to have the reasons for his detention
examined but this was rejected on .. February, 1965.  He states that
he lodged an appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision on .. February,
1965.

On .. May, 1965, the Applicant was convicted on charges of fraud
by the Regional Court of Duisburg and sentenced to 4 years' penal
servitude.

The Applicant complains that he was wrongly detained on remand in
that he had never intended to abscond from the jurisdiction of the
Court and that this suspicion had been the reason for his detention.
He further complains that on account of the fact that letters from
prison had to be approved by the prison authorities, his letters were
delayed and that, while in the State Hospital at Bedburg-Hau for
observation, three letters to his lawyers were opened, read and held
back for 8 days before they were forwarded.

The Applicant also complains that his sentence was too severe.

He alleges a violation of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning his
conviction and sentence, it is to be observed that, under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter
after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the
generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the
Applicant failed to show that he appealed from the Regional Court's
decision of .. May, 1965 to the competent court; whereas, therefore,
he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the length
of his detention on remand, it appears that he failed to lodge a
constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); whereas, therefore,
in this respect also he has not exhausted the remedies available to
him under German law;

Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,

including an examination made ex officio, 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 in either case the domestic remedies at his
disposal;

Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)
(Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by the
Applicant;

Whereas, in any event, in regard to the above complaint concerning the
length of the Applicant's detention on remand, an examination of the
case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex
officio, does not, in the particular circumstances of the present case,
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 5, paragraph (3)
(Art. 5-3);

Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant complains that the prison authorities at Duisburg
and the hospital authorities at Bedburg-Hau opened, read, and delayed
the transmission of several letters to his lawyers, the delay in one
case amounting to eight days; whereas in this respect the Commission
has had regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees
to everyone the right to respect for his correspondence and authorises
interference with the exercise of this right only under certain
conditions set out in paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 8-2); whereas
the question arises whether the authorities concerned, by the acts
described, interfered with his freedom of correspondence; whereas it
is to be observed that an ordinary control of correspondence is
considered to be an inherent feature of imprisonment; whereas, having
regard to the very short delay in the transmission of the letters
concerned, the Commission finds that the conduct of the prison or
hospital authorities does not amount to an interference with the
Applicant's freedom of correspondence within the meaning of Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention; whereas it follows that this complaint is
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article
27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.