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

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1926 and at present detained
in prison at Düsseldorf.

1. The Applicant states that, on .. March, 1964, he was detained on
remand (Untersuchungshaft) on suspicion of aggravated theft. When he
wrote to the Commission on 17th July 1966, he stated that he was still
in detention on remand and that an indictment had not yet been issued
against him. By letter of 19th December, 1966, he confirmed that he was
still in detention on remand but indicated at the same time that he had
been convicted in respect of certain charges by a court which he
considered to be prejudiced against him.

The Applicant has not submitted full information regarding the
proceedings before the German courts in respect of his detention.

In his first letter to the Commission (21st May, 1965), he indicated
that proceedings regarding his detention (Haftprüfung) had taken place,
but he complained that he had not been allowed to express his views in
these proceedings ("in keiner Fase der Haftprüfung hat man mich
sprechen lassen, sondern man hat mir den Mund verboten"). In his
application form (11th September, 1965) he also referred to his appeals
against detention (Anträge auf Haftüberprüfung) but without providing
any details about them.

In a subsequent letter to the Commission (17th July, 1966), he stated
that he had repeatedly applied to the Regional Court (Landgericht) of
Düsseldorf for an oral hearing regarding the continuation of his
detention. This had not been granted until .. March, 1966, that is
after two years' detention and, moreover, his lawyer had not been asked
to appear at the hearing.

2. The Applicant states that he is innocent in respect of the offenses
of which he is suspected and that there is evidence to prove his
innocence. However, as the Public Prosecutor has failed to indicate the
date of the alleged offence, the Applicant is unable to present a valid
alibi and, if he should try to do this, the Public Prosecutor would
only state that the offence might have been committed on another

The Applicant also complains that the authorities have tried to obtain
a confession from him by using improper methods, such as blackmail and

In particular, he alleges that he has been ill-treated during his
detention both in connection with his interrogation by the police and
otherwise in prison. As a result of this alleged ill-treatment, he
suffered serious injuries. His left eye was so badly injured that he
had to be treated at the prison hospital for six months and the sight
of that eye has remained affected.

The Applicant further complains that, in order to aggravate his
detention, the prison authorities have refused, contrary to general
practice, to let him have books from the prison library or to give him
permission to use a transistor radio. He also complains that he has not
been allowed to be represented by a lawyer appointed by himself but
only by a lawyer appointed ex officio in whom he has no confidence, and
that the prison administration has interfered with his right of defence
by suppressing his letters to lawyers and public authorities.

3. The Applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 6, paragraphs (1),
(2) and (3), 8 and 9 of the Convention.

Proceedings before the Commission

Whereas the proceedings before the Commission may be summarised as

I. Questions of interference with the Applicant's right to correspond
with the Commission (Article 25 of the Convention)

1. The Applicant first wrote to the Commission on 21st May, 1965, and
he received in reply the usual information regarding the submission of
an application to the Commission.

By letter of 21st October, 1965, he informed the Commission that he had
tried to send his formal application to the Commission but that it had
been seized by the German authorities. He also enclosed a copy of a
decision of .. September, 1965, by which a letter written by the
Applicant to the Council of Europe had been stopped ("von der
Beförderung ausgeschlossen") by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf
because of defamatory contents.

On 14th December, 1965, the Commission decided to request information
from the Federal Government in regard to the seizure of his letter.
On 10th February, 1966, the Government informed the Commission that the
Regional Court of Düsseldorf had, after "a new examination", revised
its decision of .. September, 1965, by which the Applicant's letter had
been seized.

In the meanwhile, the Commission's Secretary had received, on 31st
January, 1966, the Applicant's application form dated 11th September,
1965, and had duly registered it.

2. On 15th June, 1966, the Commission's Secretary received from the
Applicant a letter containing further submissions in regard to the
present Application. This letter seemed to have been originally dated
16th November, 1965 but this date had apparently been changed to 8th
June, 1966.

In reply, the Secretary asked the Applicant when he had actually
written and sent the letter which had been received on 15th June, 1966.

The Applicant replied that he had written and sent this letter on 16th
November, 1965 but that it had then apparently not been forwarded and
that, subsequently, the date had been changed.

3. The Applicant indicated that he could not in his letters give the
Commission full information in regard to his complaints since he would
then run the risk of being subjected to reprisals. He also stated that
he did not find it advisable to enclose any documents with his letters
to the Commission as he could not be certain as to whether such
documents would ever reach the Commission.

The Applicant therefore requested that the Commission should appoint
a "neutral" person to whom he could personally confide information and
documents which he wished to submit to the Commission.

II. Insulting language in the Applicant's submissions

On 6th October, 1966, the Commission observed, during its examination
of the Application, that in some of his submissions the Applicant had
made use of insulting and provocative language. The Commission,
therefore, decided to inform the Applicant that, unless he was prepared
to withdraw or amend certain passages of his submissions, it would
reject the whole Application as being an abuse of the right of petition
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention.

The passage concerned were the following:

(a) In his application form of 11th September, 1965, he wrote: "They
reproach me of having been an opponent of the Hitler Reich and call
this a bad past. But I reproach the Court of working as Nazi judges in
the German Courts" (Meine Widerstandsbewegung gegen das Hitlerreich
wirft man mir als schlechte Vergangenheit vor. Ich dagegen werfe dem
Gericht vor, dass sie als Nazi-Richter in den deutschen Gerichten

(b) In his letter of 13th April, 1966, he wrote: "My opinion in this
respect is that one can only obtain right here by means of money and
that otherwise one is in a bad position" (Meine Auffassung zu diesen
Dingen ist, dass man sich hier nur Recht durch Geld verschaffen kann
oder sonst benachteiligt ist).

(c) In his letter which arrived on 15th June, 1966, he wrote: "I allege
that the German Justice makes use of the meanest methods which are
worse than those of the Hitler Reich in order to break my resistance.
For this reason, I can have no respect for German Justice, since it
suppresses in a horrible manner and with impermissible methods any
better feelings of an individual ... .They tell me that we live in a
State founded on law, but I doubt this. I have more respect for a
prostitute than for German Justice" (Ich mache der deutschen Justiz den
Vorwurf, dass sie die gemeinsten Mittel, die das Hitlerreich
übersteigen, anwendet um mich mürbe zu machen. Ich kann aus diesem
Grunde keine Achtung vor der deutschen Justiz haben, weil sie mit
unerlaubten Mitteln jede bessere Regung eines einzelnen Menschen
grausam unterdrücken tut ... . Sie sprechen mich an, wir leben in einem
Rechtsstaat, aber ich stelle das in Zweifel. Achtung habe ich vor jeder
Dirne [mehr] als vor der Justiz in Deutschland.)

By letter of 9th January, 1967, the Applicant replied in the following

"(a) The application form of 11th September, 1965 is changed so as to
indicate that I only wanted to show the method used in this respect.

(b) The letter of 13th April, 1966 is changed so as to indicate that
these are facts which can be proved by recent newspaper reports.

(c) The last sentence is deleted: 'I have more respect ...'  The method
of treating people in detention on remand is proved by the trials in
Cologne and Hamburg. May complaints in this regard have had no effect."

[(a) Beschwerdeformular vom 11.9.65 wird dahin geändert, dass ich nur
die Methode wie man das macht, aufzeigen wollte.

(b) Brief vom 13. April 1966 wird dahin geändert, dass dieses Tatsachen
sind, die man durch neueste Zeitungsberichte belegen kann.

(c) Der letzte Absatz wird gestrichen: "Achtung habe ich vor ..."  Die
Methode, wie man in U-Haft behandelt wird, beweisen die Prozesse in
Köln und Hamburg. Meine Anzeigen hat man diesbezüglich fallen


Whereas Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention
provides that "the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition
submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25), which it considers an abuse of
the right of petition";

Whereas, in the present case, the Applicant's pleadings contained three
passages which were provocative and insulting to the respondent
Government; whereas, therefore, the Commission invited the Applicant
to withdraw or amend these passages; whereas the Commission also
informed him that, unless he was prepared to withdraw or amend these
passages, it would reject the whole Application as being an abuse of
the right of petition within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant has, by letter of 9th January, 1967, submitted
his reply to this statement by the Commission;

Whereas the Commission considers that, in respect of the first two
objectionable passages quoted above, the Applicant's reply cannot be
considered to constitute a withdrawal or an acceptable amendment;

Whereas, in respect of the third passage, it is true that the Applicant
has withdrawn the very last sentence but, on the other hand, he seems
to confirm, rather than withdraw, the rest of his statements contained
in that passage;

Whereas, consequently, the Applicant has not satisfied the conditions
indicated to him by the Commission; and whereas in these circumstances
the Commission considers that the Applicant has abused the right of
petition within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2)
of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission observes that in the present case the Applicant
has also alleged that there had been certain interferences with his
right to correspond with the Commission; whereas these allegations
raise an issue under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention and do not
concern the admissibility of the Application itself;

Whereas, nevertheless, the Commission has had in mind the fact that the
Application is to be declared inadmissible as being an abuse of the
right of petition; whereas, in these particular circumstances, the
Commission does not find it necessary to examine further the question
whether or to what extent there has been undue interference with the
Applicant's effective exercise of his right to present his case to the

Now therefore the Commission

1. declares the Application INADMISSIBLE.

2. decides to take no further action in regard to the allegations
relating to the Applicant's correspondence with the Commission.