THE FACTS

Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant and appearing from the
documents submitted by him may be summarised as follows:

A. The applicant is a political refugee from the Soviet Union born in 1920 at
Boka in Turkestan and at present living in Bonn, where he works for the Press
Club. During the war he fought in the German army and after the defeat of
Germany he remained and hid in Germany in order to avoid expulsion or
extradition to the Soviet Union.

He is now represented by Rechtsanwältin Y., a lawyer practising at Beuel am
Rhein.

B. The applicant has lodged, on 17th January, 1961, a previous Application No.
1003/61 the facts of which were summarised as follows:

"1. Le requérant a réclamé depuis 1960 la tutelle sur son neveu Turdi X., né
le 18 janvier 1948, et sa nièce, Ursula X., née le 20 janvier 1947, mais en
vain.

Le père des enfants en question, Abadt X., vit depuis la guerre en Allemagne
où il s'est marié en 1947. Il a divorcé le .. avril, 9152, et a été placé, par
la suite, dans une maison de desintoxication alcoolique de Bayreuth. Il a été
cependant libéré sous condition.

Le .. avril, 9160, le Tribunal des tutelles de Munich (Amtsgericht) a déclaré
la déchéance de la puissance paternelle sur les enfants Turdi et Ursula X. et
a nommé, le .. mai, 1960, l'"Association pour la protection de l'enfant et de
la mère" (Verein für Kinder- und Mutterschutz) tuteur.

2. Le requérant a alors porté plainte, le .. juillet, 1960, auprès du Tribunal
régional I (Landgericht) de Munich. Dans son recours il a invoqué notamment le
lien de parenté entre lui et les enfants - il est le demi-frère d'Abadt X. -
et il a demandé de lui transférer la tutelle. X. a en outre affirmé que les
enfants étaient de confession musulmane et qu'il était inadmissible de les
éduquer dans une institution catholique. Il a demandé, en même temps, de
permettre aux enfants de fréquenter une école supérieure (Oberschule).

Le .. août, 1960, le Tribunal régional a ordonné au tuteur d'accepter
l'admission des enfants à une école supérieure de Munich. Une demande
ultérieure du requérant de restreindre davantage les droits du tuteur, ä
savoir de lui permettre la communication avec les enfants, a été repoussée le
.. août, 1960. Le Stadtjugendamt et la mère des enfants se seraient opposés à
un transfert de la tutelle au requérant.

Le .. janvier, 1961, la 13ème Chambre du Tribunal régional a rejeté le recours
du requérant du .. juillet, 1960. Le Tribunal a repoussé, en même temps, une
plainte d'Abadt X. du .. novembre, 1960.

Maître Z., avocat à Munich, a introduit, au nom du requérant de d'Abadt X., un
recours immédiat (sofortige Beschwerde) auprès de la Court d'appel suprême de
Bavière (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht).

Nous ne savons pas quelle suite a été donné au dernier recours.

3. Le requérant allègue une violation de la Convention, de la Loi relative à
l'Accord du 28 juillet, 1951, concernant le Statut des réfugiés et de la Loi
du 25 avril, 1951, relative au Statut des étrangers sans domicile.

En particulier, il se prétend victime d'une violation de l'article 6 (3) a. Il
n'aurait pas été "informé, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu'il
comprend et d'une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de
l'accusation portée contre lui". En outre, le procès se serait déroulé dans
une langue  qu'il ne comprenait pas et par la faute de son interprète il
n'aurait pu faire valoir ses droits de manière efficace. De façon générale,
l'éducation des enfants dans une institution catholique serait incompatible
avec leur confession.

4. Le requérant demande que tous les frais judiciaires soient pris en charge
et qu'on lui confie les soins de son neveu et de sa nièce."

His last communication concerning that application was dated .. March, 1962,
and a letter addressed to him by the Commission's Secretary of .. January,
1963, was returned marked  "parti sans laisser d'adresse".

Having particular regard to these facts, the Commission decided on 23rd
September, 1963, to strike Application No. 1003/61 off its list of cases.

C. On 11th August, 1066, the applicant wrote again and complained about a
different matter. The usual application form was sent to him on 19th August,
1966, but he returned the completed form only on 2nd April, 1967.

In his present application he resumes the subject of Application No. 1003/61
and raises a number of further matters without always making it clear whether
he wants to complain of them or only refers to them in connection with other
complaints.

I. As regards the custody of his nephew  and niece, the applicant repeats in
substance his submissions made in the previous application and submits some
further details.

He asks for a reconsideration of this complaint and states that in 1962/63 he
changed his address in Bonn four times but always informed the post office in
order to have mail forwarded to the new address. In spite of repeated requests
he has, however, not submitted an documentary evidence in this respect.

In addition to his previous submissions concerning the proceedings related to
the custody of the children, the applicant now alleges that two certificates
on a catholic baptism of the children of .. February, 1957, and .. May, 1953,
on which the courts had relied in their decisions, particularly the Regional
Court of Munich in its decision of .. January, 1961, were in fact falsified or
even non-existent. He affirms that these certificates indicate wrong dates of
birth of the children. He also alleges, as in his previous Application No.
1003/61, that according to the records of the children's home in Fürth the
mother had indicated in 1950 and 1953 that the children were Moslems. In his
view these facts prove that the certificates of baptism are falsified. In
particular, he submits that he was four times given a power-of-attorney to
represent his brother in questions relating to the children. He further states
that the responsible persons (Heimleiter) of the catholic institutions where
the children had been put on several occasions between 1954 and 1957 informed
the schools concerned in writing that the children were catholics and should
be educated accordingly. These requests were signed by the responsible persons
as "guardians", although the applicant's brother at this time was entitled to
exercise the paternal authority.

With regard to the subsequent proceedings it appears from the applicant's
present submissions that on .. July, 1961, upon his appeal the Bavarian
Supreme Court set aside the decision appointing as guardian the "Association
for the Protection of Children and Mothers" since technically not the
Association but only its managing committee (Vorstand) could have been
appointed. The Court sent the case back for reconsideration pointing out that
a guardian of this kind should only be appointed where no appropriate private
individual can be appointed. But it appears that on .. August, 1961, the
District Court appointed the managing committee of the same association
stating that no appropriate individual was available. The applicant obviously
never obtained the guardianship over his nephew and niece. On the contrary, by
further District Court decisions of .. January, 1963, and .. February, 1964,
he was refused and even forbidden any further contact with the children.

On .. December, 1963, the applicant lodged with the Public Prosecutor's Office
(Staatsanwaltschaft) in Munich, a request to prosecute three District Court
judges who had dealt with the issue of the guardianship, Mr. A., Dr. B. and
Dr. C., for "having estranged the children from the Islam"
("Entislamisierung") and for "acting as Soviet agents" ("Tätigkeit als
Sowjetfunktionäre"). On .. January, 1964, the Public Prosecutor's Office
informed him that there was no reason to institute criminal proceedings
against the judges. An appeal (Beschwerde) lodged by the applicant was
dismissed by the Attorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt) on .. March, 1964. It
does not appear that the applicant lodged a request for a judicial decision
(Klageerzwingungsverfahren) by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).

On .. September, 1965, the applicant represented by Mr. W., a lawyer
practising in Bonn, apparently requested that the District Court of Munich
should appoint him as a special curator (Pfleger) of the children in religious
questions. The Association appointed as guardian was heard and on .. November,
1965, opposed this request pointing out that the children themselves wished to
be catholic. Reference was made to the German Act covering the Religious
Education of Children, under which a child's religion may not be changed
against his will after the age of 12 and the child has the right to decide
freely on his religion after the age of 14. The applicant has given no
information on the decision taken by the Court in these proceedings. But
apparently his request remained without success.

II. In his present application the applicant further alleges that, on .. July,
1962, his half-brother Abad X. was deported to the Soviet Union.

In this respect, it appears that Abad X. had been convicted on .. July, 1962,
by the District Court of Munich, of having committed an offense in a state of
intoxication (Art. 330a of the Penal Code) and sentenced to 7 months'
imprisonment and committed to an institution for alcoholics. The applicant
alleges that the director of the "Association for the Protection of Children
and Mothers" which acted as guardian of the children, and the director of
Stadelheim Prison in Munich where Abad X. was detained had him deported to the
Soviet Union against his will.

According to the applicant, two declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..
February, 1962, indicating Abad X's consent to the repatriation had been
forged by the judges. He also contests the authenticity of a document of ..
April, 1961, in which Mrs. D. of Taschkent, the mother of Abad X. and
stepmother of the applicant, declares to the Soviet Embassy in Bonn that she
is willing to accommodate and support her son Abad X. As a result of this
declaration the Soviet Embassy had consented on .. May, 1962, to the
repatriation of Abad X. It appears that the expulsion was finally effected on
the basis of a decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich of ..
July, 1962. The applicant was not informed about the expulsion of his brother.

More than four years later, on .. September, 1966, after having received
copies of the two above-mentioned declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..
February, 1962, the applicant lodged with the Federal Attorney-General
(Generalbundesanwalt) a request to prosecute the unknown persons responsible
for what he considers the political deportation (politische Verschleppung) of
his brother. The matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in
Munich as being the competent authority and the enquiry was discontinued on ..
January, 1967, on the ground that there was no appearance of a criminal
offence. The Public Prosecutor stated that Abad X. himself had applied in
person to the Soviet Embassy for his repatriation. In this context the Public
Prosecutor also referred to the above-mentioned documents.

Also on .. January, 1967, the Public Prosecutor dismissed a further criminal
charge laid by the applicant against four District Court judges of Munich whom
he accused of having forged the declaration of Abad X. His brother, having
fought in the German army during the war, would never have signed a request
for repatriation.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his charges which on
.. January, 1967, was rejected by the Attorney-General at the Court of Appeal
(Generalstaatsanwalt). In the decision the applicant was informed of the right
of the victim of a criminal offence, under Article 172, paragraph 2, of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to request a judicial decision by the Court of
Appeal (Klageerzwingungsverfahren). But it appears that he failed to lodge
such a request.

The applicant further states that he has only recently been granted access to
certain documents relating to his brother's deportation. On one of these
documents he has found a reference to "the efforts of the Eastern Powers to
repatriate political emigrants". He submits that this must be a reference to
an Agreement of 16th November, 1939, between the German Reich and the Soviet
Union concerning resettlement of certain populations in the "zones of
interest" of the two countries, or to some subsequent analogous agreement.

III. Further complaints of the applicant concern his obligation to pay alimony
for an illegitimate child Gabriel E. born on 17th May, 1952, and the civil and
criminal proceedings which were conducted against him in this respect.

After first having contested on .. July, 1952, being the father, since the
mother had also had relations with other men, he signed on .. July, 1952, on
the ground that he had only recognised the child since the mother Magdalena E.
had promised to marry him, but had, in fact, subsequently married another man.

In 1957 and 1959 the District Court of Fürstenfeldbruck increased the amount
of maintenance to 50 and 65 DM respectively.

In 1961 an action for a further increase was brought before the District Court
in Fürstenfeldbruck and subsequently referred to the District Court in Bonn
where the applicant had taken up residence. The applicant, although admitting
intimate relations with the mother of Gabriel E., contested being the father
of the child and the mother herself admitted having had relations with other
men.

On .. February, 1963, the Court obtained an expert opinion based on the blood
groups of the applicant and of the child and concluded that his paternity was
not excluded. On .. April, 1963, the Court decided to obtain from a university
institute of Munich a further expert opinion based on the hereditary
characteristics of the applicant and the child. But the applicant refused
several times to appear for the necessary examination in Munich since he had
understood from the institute charged with the examination that the opinion
could not come to any conclusions in view of his racial particularities as a
Turkestani. On .. March, 1964, the District Court in Bonn imposed a fine of
100 DM because of the applicant's refusal to appear for the examination, but
upon appeal this decision was quashed by the Regional Court on .. July, 1964.

On .. November, 1964, the applicant, when calling in person on the competent
District Court judge Mr. F., was informed that the decision of .. April, 1963,
concerning the opinion to be obtained from the Munich university institute had
been set aside, but that another expert opinion would be obtained in criminal
proceedings which had been instituted in Munich against the applicant for
failure to pay maintenance. In fact, the District Court judge, Dr. G., in
Munich decided only some days later on .. November, 1964, to obtain such an
expert opinion and informed the applicant only in mid-December of this
decision which had been known to the District Court judge F. in Bonn already
on .. November, 1964.

Thereupon, on .. December, 1964, the applicant challenged Mr. F., as being
prejudiced. This challenge was rejected on .. January, 1965, by the Regional
Court judge (Landgerichtsrat) H. The applicant lodged an appeal (sofortige
Beschwerde) which was rejected by the Court of Appeal on .. April, 1965.

In the meantime, on .. March, 1965, Professor Dr. I., the expert charged by
the District Court of Munich had given his expert opinion and concluded that,
in all probability, the applicant is the father of Gabriel E.

On .. July, 1965, the applicant then submitted that his relations with the
mother had in fact been outside the possible period of conception. He further
submitted that, when signing the declaration of paternity of .. July, 1952, he
had not intended to recognise the child as his own but to adopt it in view of
the intended marriage with the mother, which only had to be postponed pending
receipt of certain necessary papers. According to him he had misunderstood the
sense of the declaration due to his insufficient knowledge of German and the
court official had falsified the document.

In view of the applicant's previous attitude the District Court of Bonn
rejected these submissions as being untrue and gave judgment against the
applicant on .. July, 1965. This decision was given by Judge H. who in the
meantime had been moved from the Regional Court to the District Court and had
replaced Judge F. It appears that the applicant had unsuccessfully tried to
challenge him on the basis of Article 41, paragraph 6, of the Code of Civil
Procedure which excludes judges who have participated in a decision under
review.

The applicant appealed from the District Court judgment of .. July, 1965, to
the Regional Court and requested free legal aid for the appeal proceedings.
The latter request was rejected on .. July, 1966, on the ground that his
appeal offered no sufficient prospect of success. On .. July, 1966, the
Regional Court ordered a supplementary blood grouping test on the basis of two
new scientific methods (Duffy and Gmx). The Court requested the applicant to
pay within a certain time-limit 200 DM in advance for the expenses of this
expert opinion but the applicant failed to do so even after the Court had
extended the time-limit and only requested a further extension on the ground
that he could not afford the amount since he was on holiday. In view of the
fact that the case had already been pending since 1961 the Court informed the
applicant that no further extension could be granted, and when he failed to
comply with the order within the time-limit, it proceeded with the case on the
basis of the evidence previously obtained, in particular the two expert
opinions of .. February, 1963, and .. March, 1965.

On .. October, 1966, the Regional Court rejected his appeal and confirmed the
District Court decision that the applicant was to be considered as the father
of Gabriel E. The amount of maintenance to be paid for the child up to the age
of 18 was fixed at 80 DM per month as of .. March, 1963, at 90 DM as of ..
September, 1963, and at 100 DM as of .. January, 1966.

The applicant alleges an improper and illegal procedure by the Regional Court
of Bonn. In this respect he alleges that Judge H. who had first decided as a
Regional Court judge on the challenge against the District Court Judge F., and
later replaced that judge in the District Court and given the District Court
judgment, later acted again as judge of the Regional Court in the appeal
proceedings. According to the orders and the judgment given by the Regional
Court in the appeal proceedings, Judge H. did, however, not participate in any
of these decisions.

It appears that the applicant intended to challenge the judges of the Regional
Court panel dealing with his case, but that his first lawyer, Dr. W., then
withdrew from the case and that a new lawyer Mrs. V. although first appearing
prepared to challenge the judges finally failed to do so and apparently also
withdrew from the case.

In his application the applicant complains generally that the decisions as to
his paternity are wrong. He states that it is impossible, according to the
circumstances, that he was the father of Gabriel E. He quotes from statements
of certain scientists of Frankfurt who found that the expert opinion of
Professor I. was based on wrong assumptions. He complains that the expert
failed to examine early photographs of him and photographs of his relatives
and to compare them with the appearance of the child. With regard to the
document of .. July, 1952, according to which he had recognised that he was
the father, he repeats that this did not reflect properly his intentions and
declarations. He states that in the course of the proceedings before the
District Court of Bonn, he had "invalidated" ("kraftlos gemacht") this
declaration and the subsequent judgments on the basis of Article 6, paragraph
(3) (a), of the Convention. He accuses the judges who dealt with his case of
bias and hostility against foreigners in particular against political refugees
from the Soviet Union, and alleges that the paternity suit has been instigated
by Soviet agents who try to ruin him financially. He affirms that he has
suffered economic losses in the amount of 150,000 DM.

IV. The applicant further complains about the criminal proceedings conducted
against him in Munich both because of his failure to pay alimony for Gabriel
E. and because of defamation concerning Judge A.

In this respect it appears that on .. November, 1962, the Youth Welfare Office
of the City of Munich (Stadtjugendamt) in its capacity as guardian of Gabriel
E. laid with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Bonn charges against the
applicant of having failed to support the child (Unterhaltspflichtverletzung)
within the meaning of Article 170 b of the Penal Code. These charges were
referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich, apparently on the ground
that the charges also covered the period when the applicant was still living
in and near Munich. The applicant, however, considers this decision as a
violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provide
that criminal proceedings may also be conducted in the district where the
applicant actually has his residence or where he had been arrested. He also
considers that no criminal proceedings could have been instituted before the
civil paternity suit in Bonn had been finally decided.

At the District Court in Munich the case was first dealt with by Judge Dr. G.
The applicant questions the impartiality of this judge and alleges that the
judge's wife has been his opponent in the proceedings concerning the custody
of his niece and nephew but he has failed to explain this allegation. In
particular, he complains of the decision of .. November, 1964, by Judge Dr. G.
to obtain an expert opinion from Professor Dr. I. It appears that subsequently
the case was dealt with by another judge, Mrs. J., who on .. May, 1967,
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 months' imprisonment for the
failure to pay maintenance for the child. The applicant was given credit for
a period of detention on remand from .. October to .. November, 1965, and the
remainder of the sentence was suspended on probation. The applicant has failed
to provide any details with regard to his arrest and detention on remand but
complains that, as a consequence, he lost both his employment and his
apartment and was even refused unemployment benefits for 4 weeks since he
refused to accept a job as dish-washer.

By the District Court judgement of .. May, 1967, the applicant was also
convicted of having made defamatory statements (üble Nachrede) about District
Court Judge A. of Munich who had dealt with the proceedings concerning the
custody of his niece and nephew. In a letter to a superior he had called Judge
A. a "liar" and accused him of having intimate relations with the divorced
wife of Abad X. and of having conspired with her with a view to having the
children brought to the Soviet Union.

The applicant lodged with the Regional Court of Munich I an appeal (Berufung)
from the conviction and sentence of .. May, 1967. The date for the appeal
hearing was fixed for .. February, 1968, but the applicant has given no
information on the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

V. As a result of the applicant's refusal to pay alimony for the illegitimate
child, the competent administrative authority of the City of Bonn,
(Oberstadtdirektor - Ordnungsamt) refused several times since .. April, 1961,
to prolong the applicant's international travel document or to issue a new
one, on the ground that he might try to shirk his obligation to pay
maintenance. Against the last of these decisions dated .. February, 1965, the
applicant appealed to the Administrative Court at Cologne but apparently
without success.

On .. May, 1967, the applicant's lawyer made a new request to the
above-mentioned authority to have an international travel document issued to
the applicant for a journey abroad. On .. May, 1967, the authority, under
Article 19, paragraph (2) No. 4, of the Aliens Act of 1965, formally
prohibited the applicant from going abroad on the ground that there was an
immediate danger that he would shirk his liability to pay maintenance. At the
same time the applicant was requested under Article 3 of the Aliens Act to
apply for an international travel document as an identity paper for his stay
in the Federal Republic. The applicant was informed of his right to object
(Widerspruch einlegen) to this order within a month from receipt. Whether he
has subsequently seized the competent Administrative Court is not clear. The
applicant has only submitted a carbon copy of a letter of .. July, 1967, in
which he protests against the decision of .. May, 1967.

The applicant submits that this decision is contrary to the Geneva Convention
on the Status of Refugees and of the German Statute of 25th April, 1951, on
the Status of Displaced Persons (über die Rechtsstellung Heimatloser
Ausländer) and complains that by reason of the prohibition to go abroad he has
been unable to carry out a number of important professional missions and has
suffered considerable financial losses and claims damages. The applicant
considers that he has been "interned" since 1961.

He alleges that in 1963/1964 and again at present the authorities are
preparing his expulsion or extradition to the Soviet Union where he would be
subjected to torture and severe punishment for his anti-communist activities.
In this respect he submits a copy of a letter of November, 1963, from the
lawyer of the "Association for the Protection of Children and Mothers" to the
Ministry of Interior of North-Rhine-Westphalia in which the lawyer complains
of the applicant's continuous interferences with the education of his niece
and nephew and suggests to "bring him to his senses" by a threat of
extradition. On .. October, 1963, also the competent administrative authority
of the City of Munich requested the analogous authority in Bonn, to take
against the applicant measures under the Aliens Ordinance
(Ausländerpolizeiverordnung). The authority in Bonn, however, informed the
applicant on .. May, 1967, that they had not intended his expulsion in 1963
and 1964. The applicant has submitted no details and evidence with regard to
his allegation that his expulsion is at present being prepared.

On .. and .. July, 1968, the applicant telephoned and added to his submissions
that it was becoming more and more apparent that the Ministry of Interior took
an extremely hostile attitude towards him and that compatriots of his living
in Munich had been questioned by the authorities as to whether he should be
expelled to the Soviet Union. On .. July, 1968, the applicant submitted his
travel document issued by the German authorities with reference to the Geneva
Convention of .. July, 1951, on the status of refugees. This passport is valid
up to 10 July, 1969, but bears the mention "prohibition to leave the country
(Ausreiseverbot)".

The applicant has also referred to the situation of political refugees in the
Federal Republic in general. He has stated in particular that Soviet agents
are allowed to murder or kidnap such refugees without any action being taken
by the Federal Republic.

VI. With regard to the above-mentioned proceedings before the District Court
of Bonn and the Administrative Court of Cologne and some further proceedings
before the Labour Court of Bonn, the applicant had to pay several amounts of
court and lawyers' fees.

By a decision (Kostenfeststellungsbeschluss) of .. August, notified on ..
August, 1967, the Registrar (Urkundenbeamter der Geschäftsstelle) of the
District Court of Bonn ordered the applicant to pay certain fees to Mr. W. who
had been one of his lawyers in the paternity suit. The applicant raised an
objection (Erinnerung) on .. and .. September, 1967, but on .. September,
1967, the District Court rejected this objection as being raised out of time.

Another lawyer who had acted for him in the paternity suit, Mrs. V., obtained
on .. August, 1967, a judgment of the District Court for her fees and on ..
September, 1967, a further decision of the registry for the costs involved in
the action for payment of fees. On .. September,  1967, in a letter addressed
both to Mrs. V and Mr. W. the applicant protested against his obligation to
pay the lawyers's fees since he considered that both lawyers had not
represented him adequately and requested that the lawyers should repay the
fees already received.

For the execution of the various decisions to pay court and lawyers' fees a
number of orders attaching the applicant's salary at the Press Club, were
issued on .. August, .. September, .. and .. October, 1967. From the documents
submitted by the applicant it appears that he raised before the District Court
of Bonn objections (Erinnerung) against two of these orders issued on ..
August and .. September, 1967. These objections were rejected on .. October,
1967, upon his appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) by the Regional Court. The Courts
stated that contrary to the applicant's assumptions, only the part of the
salary exceeding a certain minimum fixed by law (pfändbarer Teil) would be
affected by the distraint orders. As to the further submissions by which the
orders had been made, the Court pointed out that such submissions could not be
made in an objection concerning only the execution measure itself.

The applicant complains generally that by the various execution measures he no
longer has sufficient means for his living.

Whereas the applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows:

He alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, paragraph (1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14
and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of numerous provisions of
the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and of various German legal
provisions.

The applicant requests that the civil and criminal decisions concerning the
obligation to pay alimony for Gabriel E. and the prohibition to travel abroad
should be set aside and that he should be granted damages. He demands an
investigation of his charges against the judicial authorities in connection
with the deportation of his brother and the proceedings concerning the custody
of his niece and nephew and reintegration of the two children in the religious
and ethnical group of their father. He also requests the Commission to
investigate the alleged plans of the authorities to deport him to the Soviet
Union.

THE LAW

I. As to the complaints concerning the question of the guardianship and
religious education of the applicant's niece and nephew;

Whereas the applicant reintroduces certain complaints concerning the
guardianship over his nephew and niece and their religious education which
were already raised in his previous Application No. 1003/61;
Whereas, however, their complaints were not determined by the Commission which
struck this application off its list of cases as the applicant, having moved,
failed to keep the Commission informed of his change of address;

Whereas, as in his previous application, the applicant first complains
generally that, although being the uncle of the two children and having been
specifically entrusted with their education by their father, Abad X., he was
not awarded guardianship over them; whereas the Commission has examined this
complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees everyone
the right to respect for the family life; whereas, in order that this
provision should be applicable, it must be shown that such a link existed
between the applicant and the two children as can be considered to establish
family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas the Commission
finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, the relationship between
the uncle and nephew and niece cannot be said to amount to such a link;
whereas in this respect it is particularly observed that the applicant and his
brother's children are not, and have not been, living together in the same
household;

Whereas in these circumstances the decision concerning the guardianship of the
children did not affect the applicant's family life within the meaning of
Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas consequently there is no appearance of a violation
of Article 8 (Art. 8);

Whereas, secondly, the applicant complains specifically that his niece and
nephew are estranged from their own Moslem religion by being brought up in a
Catholic institution and alleges in this respect a violation of Article 9
(Art. 9) ,which protects the right of freedom of religion;

Whereas in this respect the question might arise whether the applicant,
although not a direct victim of the alleged violation of the right of his
niece and nephew to religious freedom, can nevertheless be considered in the
circumstances of the case as having such moral interest in their religious
education and as being so affected, albeit indirectly, by the alleged
violation as to be considered a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art.
25); whereas, however, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine
this question since in any event there is no appearance of a violation of the
children's right to religious freedom; whereas the Commission observes in this
respect that, under the German law concerning the religious education of
children, any child from the age of 14 has the right to determine freely his
religion; whereas the applicant's niece and nephew are at present 21 and 20
years old and whereas there is nothing to suggest that they are prevented from
freely exercising this right; whereas consequently there can no longer
possibly exist any violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention;

Whereas it follows that the applicant's complaints concerning his niece and
nephew are manifestly ill-founded both as regards the question of guardianship
and of the religious education; whereas therefore these complaints must be
rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

II. As to the complaints concerning the expulsion of the applicant's brother
Abad X.

Whereas the applicant further alleges that in 1962 his brother Abad X. was
deported to the Soviet Union against his will and in spite of the fact that
having fought in the German army during the war, he had the status of a
refugee; whereas the applicant complains that the criminal charges, which he
laid in 1966 and 1967 against judges and other persons responsible for the
alleged political deportation of his brother, were not proceeded with; whereas
in this respect it is observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article
1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of
the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only
the alleged violation of one of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting
Party can be the subject of an application presented by a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals; whereas otherwise its
examination is outside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae;
whereas the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges or
other persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its
previous decisions, No. 2646 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 19, page 89) and
No. 2942 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 23, page 51); whereas it follows that
this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

III. As to the complaints concerning the civil proceedings and decisions under
which the applicant has to pay alimony for the illegitimate child;

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings and the decisions in the District Court
and Regional Court of Bonn, an examination of the case as it has been
submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant; whereas,
in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the Commission has
frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the
Convention its only task is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken
by the Parties in the Convention;

Whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application
alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in
the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its
decisions No. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium - Yearbook III, p. 233) and No. 1140/61
(X. v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is
no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

IV. As to the complaints concerning the criminal proceedings against the
applicant;

Whereas the applicant also complains of the criminal proceedings conducted
against him in Munich and of his conviction on .. May, 1967, by the District
Court;

Whereas in this respect it is first 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; whereas the applicant has failed to
supply any information as to the result of the appeal which he lodged with the
Regional Court and whereas thus it is not clear whether these appeal
proceedings are still pending; whereas there would also exist the possibility
of a further appeal (Revision) to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht);
whereas, therefore, the applicant has not shown that he has exhausted the
remedies available to him under German law;

Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, 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 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 the
Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas in any event an examination of the complaints concerning the criminal
proceedings as they have been submitted, does not disclose an appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in
particular in the Articles invoked by the applicant; whereas it follows that
this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

V. As to the complaints concerning the applicant's travel document and the
alleged threat of his deportation;

Whereas the applicant complains on the one hand that, since 1961, he was
refused a travel document and, on .. May, 1967, was expressly forbidden to
leave the Federal Republic; whereas on the other hand he alleges that the
German authorities are preparing his expulsion to the Soviet Union;

Whereas with regard to these complaints it is first recalled that the
Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guaranteed only the rights
and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention and that, under Article
25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those
rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an
application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of
individuals; whereas certain further rights and freedoms have been added by
the provisions of the First Protocol to the Convention (P1), which, under
Article 5 of the First Protocol (P1-5), shall be regarded as additional
Articles to the Convention; whereas the examination of any complaint not
relating to one of the rights and freedoms thus guaranteed is outside the
competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas both the rights claimed
by the applicant are not as such included among the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas with regard
to the right to leave a country and to be granted the necessary papers for
this purpose the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 1976/61, T. against the Federal Republic of
Germany, and 1925/63, F. against Belgium; whereas, as regards the right not to
be expelled from a particular country, the Commission refers to its decisions
on the admissibility of Applications No. 1802/62, Yearbook of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Vol. VI, pages 462 (478) and No. 3040/67,
Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133 (136); whereas it follows that
this aspect of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

Whereas the Commission has also had regard ex officio to the Fourth Protocol
(P4) to the Convention which entered into force for the Federal Republic on
1st June, 1968, and which, in Article 2, paragraph (2) (P4-2-2), protects the
freedom to leave any country and in Article 4 (P4-4) forbids collective
expulsion of aliens; whereas, however, Article 6, paragraph 2 of this Protocol
(P4-6-2) provides that "the right of individual recourse recognised by a
declaration made under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention ... shall not be
effective in relation to this Protocol unless the High Contracting Party
concerned has made a statement recognising such right ... in respect of all or
any of Articles 1 to 4 of the Protocol (P1-1, P1-2, P1-3, P1-4)"; whereas it
follows that for the time being the Commission has no competence to examine
any individual application directed against the Federal Republic of Germany in
the light of the provisions of the Fourth Protocol (P4);

Whereas the Commission has finally had regard to the applicant's allegation
that the German authorities prepared his expulsion to the Soviet Union and
that in view of his past and present political activities he would risk severe
punishment and inhuman treatment in that country;

Whereas it is true that, according to the Commission's constant jurisprudence,
the deportation or extradition of a foreigner to a particular country may in
exceptional circumstances give rise to the question whether there would be
"inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention
; whereas in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 984/61, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 6,
pages 256 (260) and No. 3040/67, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133
(138); whereas, however, the applicant has failed to submit an element of
proof to support his allegation that the German authorities have decided upon,
or are at least preparing, his expulsion to the Soviet Union; whereas the
Commission observes in this connection that according to the documents
submitted by the applicant he appears to be recognised as a political refugee
under the Geneva Convention of 28th July, 1951, which is also in force in the
Federal Republic of Germany, and whereas, consequently, any expulsion to the
Soviet Union would be excluded under German law; whereas consequently the
Commission finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

VI. As to the complaints concerning the distraint orders made against the
applicant for the enforcement of his obligation to pay court and lawyer's
fees;

Whereas, with regard to the distraint orders made against him, the applicant
only complains generally that by the various execution measures he no longer
has sufficient means for his living; whereas, in this respect again, it is
recalled that the Commission is only competent ratione materiae to examine the
alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas the question to what extent a
person's livelihood may be affected by any of the provisions of the Convention
or the First Protocol (P1);

Whereas in this context the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 159/56 (Yearbook Vol. I, documents and
decisions 1955-57, page 202) and No. 2498/65 (M. against Austria, unpublished
decision of 6th February, 1967) where it was stated that no right to an
adequate standard of living is as such included among the guaranteed rights
and freedoms; whereas it follows that the applicant's above-mentioned
complaint is also incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within
the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.