Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as

The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1929 and at present detained
in prison at Saarbrücken. He complains that he was prevented from
voting in the Land elections of the Saar in June 1965 and in the
elections for the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) in September

The Applicant states that, while in prison, he requested his voting
papers from the local authorities of Dillingen (Saar) but, on ..
September 1965, these papers were refused by the mayor of Dillingen on
the ground that the police authorities had ex officio registered the
Applicant's departure ("von Amts wegen abgemeldet").

The Applicant then wrote to the Parliament (Landtag) of the Saarland.
This petition was forwarded to the Presiding Electoral Officer
(Landeswahlleiter) who replied on .. September 1965 that the
authorities of Dillingen were competent in the Applicant's case.

From the documents submitted, it further appears that, on .. October,
the Applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court
(Bundesverwaltungsgericht) but, by a letter of .. October 1965, he was
informed that this Court was only competent for appeals (Rechtsmittel)
from decisions of lower administrative courts.

The Applicant also addressed himself without success to the Federal
Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für

He now complains:
1. that he was wrongly prevented from exercising his right to vote in
   the above elections, and
2. that, in the determination of this right, he was not granted a

He alleges violations of Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 3 of the Protocol.


Whereas the Applicant complains, in the first place, that he was
wrongly prevented from exercising his right to vote;  and whereas,
according to the terms of Article 3 of the Protocol (P1-3) to the
Convention, "the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free
elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions
which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in
the choice of the legislature";  whereas this undertaking of the
Contracting Parties to hold free elections implies the recognition of
universal suffrage;  whereas, consequently, the complaint by an
individual under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention that he was
prevented from voting gives rise to an examination by the Commission
of the implementation of this obligation;  whereas, however, it does
not follow that Article 3 (P1-3) accords the right unreservedly to
every single individual to take part in elections;  whereas, indeed,
it is generally recognised that certain limited groups of individuals
may be disqualified from voting;  whereas, however, the Commission has
still the task of considering whether such disqualifications affect the
"free expression of the opinion of the people" within the meaning of
Article 3 (P1-3); whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to
its decisions on the admissibility of Application No 530/59, Yearbook
of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 3, pages 184 - 196
(190);  No 787/60, Collection of Decisions, Volume 7, pages 75 - 80
(79);  No 1028/61, Yearbook Volume 4, pages 324 - 340 (338);  and No
1065/61, ibidem pages 260.270 (268);

Whereas the present Application raises the question of restrictions
which in law or in fact are imposed upon the right to vote of a limited
group of individuals, namely convicted prisoners serving their
sentence; whereas the Commission finds that such restrictions do not
affect the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice
of the legislature" within the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol
(P1-3); whereas, therefore, the fact that the Applicant, a convicted
prisoner, was prevented from voting in the Land elections of the Saar
and the federal elections in 1965 does not disclose, with regard to
these elections, any appearance of a violation by the Federal Republic
of Germany of its obligations under Article 3 (P1-3);

Whereas it follows that the Applicant's complaint under Article 3 of
the Protocol (P1-3) is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Whereas the Applicant also complains that, in the determination of his
right to vote, he was not granted a hearing;  whereas in this respect
the Commission has had regard to Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1),
of the Convention which provides that, in the determination of his
civil rights, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing;  whereas the
question arises whether the right to vote is a "civil right" within the
meaning of this provision;  whereas the Commission does not feel called
upon to decide this question in the present case, considering that, in
any event, the Applicant failed to lodge a constitutional appeal
(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) invoking Article 103, paragraph (1), of the
Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which states that, in the courts, "everyone is
entitled to a hearing in accordance with the law";  whereas, therefore,
he has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under
German law;  and whereas there is no appearance of any special
circumstances which might have absolved him from exhausting these
remedies;  whereas, consequently, the condition as to the exhaustion
of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)
(Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention has not been complied with by the
Applicant in respect of the remainder of his Application.

Now, therefore, the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.