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 a labour institution in N.

It appears that the applicant on .. November 1963, was taken, at his
mother's request, to a hospital for inebriates. This measure was
immediately confirmed thereafter by the District Court (Amtsgericht)
of S. In April 1964 the same Court put the applicant under guardianship
for his dipsomania. The applicant had apparently lodged an appeal
(Berufung) against this decision but it seems that it had been
dismissed by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Nuremberg. After
having been kept for a certain period in this hospital the applicant
was released. On .. October 1967 the applicant was again put into the
above mentioned hospital and he was released from there on .. December
1967. It appears that the applicant, after his release, immediately
started begging since he allegedly lacked any means of subsistence.
Subsequently he was arrested because of this and taken to a labour
institution. No details as to these allegations, however, are available
since the applicant has not been in the position to submit any document
or judicial decisions in that respect; he alleges that he has lost them
because of his unsettled living conditions.

The applicant now complains that, owing to his detention, and his being
placed under guardianship, he is not in the position to exercise his
profession as a sailor. In particular, he states that he will not be
permitted to leave the Federal Republic, which was indispensable to him
because of this situation.

He alleges violations of Articles 1 to 4 of the Fourth Additional


Whereas the applicant complains that owing to his present detention in
a labour institution he is not in the position to exercise his
profession as a sailor since he is not permitted to leave the Federal
Republic; whereas he alleges violations of his right guaranteed under
the Fourth Protocol to the Convention (P4); whereas the said Protocol
entered into force with respect to the Federal Republic of Germany on
1 June 1968; whereas it is consequently applicable in the present case
insofar as the alleged facts relate to a period after this date;

Whereas it is true that Article 2, paragraph (2), of the above
mentioned Protocol (P4-2-2) provides that "everyone shall be free to
leave any country including his own"; whereas, however paragraph (3)
of the same Article (P4-2-3) allows restrictions of this right where
such restrictions are in accordance with the law and are necessary in
a democratic society, inter alia, for the maintenance of ordre public;
whereas the refusal to release a lawfully detained person from a labour
institution is clearly a restriction within the meaning of paragraph
(3) of Article 2 (P4-2-3); whereas this interpretation is confirmed by
the Preparatory Works to the said Protocol from which it is clear that
the notion of "ordre public" was explicitly included to cover such
cases as that of the present applicant (see Doc. MC 65/16 p. A/18);
whereas consequently this application is manifestly ill-founded.