CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 juillet 1964

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  THE FACTS   Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows:   The Applicant is a Polish citizen born in 1927. He has several previous convictions.   It appears that he was arrested in 1962 under suspicion of having committed theft and that in 1963, he was convicted by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of H and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.   He alleges that his is not guilty of the crimes concerned and that, even if he were, he should have been convicted for embezzlement (Fundunterschlagung) and not for theft (Diebstahl). He further alleges that one of the lay judges went to sleep during the hearing and that the Court refused to hear six witnesses whom the defence wished to call. In his reply of 1963 to the Applicant's appeal, the Public Prosecutor, having heard witnesses, stated that the lay judge in question had been fully awake during the entire hearing of the case and had, indeed, put several questions to the parties. He further stated that the lawyer acting on behalf of the Applicant expressly renounced his right to call the above witnesses.   In 1963 the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) of A rejected the Applicant's appeal and in 1964 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint lodged by him.   In the meanwhile, the Applicant lodged a complaint against the judges of the Regional Court of H accusing them of illegally depriving him of his liberty. This complaint was rejected by the Public Prosecutor of H in 1963 and by the Supreme Public Prosecutor (General-Staatsanwalt) of A in 1964.   Whereas, in respect of the above proceedings, the Applicant alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and he states that the lawyer appointed by the Court to act on his behalf grossly neglected his professional duties.   Furthermore, he states that in 1963 he gave to the prison authorities a letter for dispatch to the Secretary to the Commission. In 1963 he was informed that the letter had been confiscated (beschlagnahmt) by a decision of the above Court on the ground that it contained slanderous statements. He maintains that he did no more than expose the truth in respect of the proceedings which led to his conviction.   In 1964 the Respondent Government admitted that the Applicant's above letter had, in fact, been confiscated. It forwarded to the Commission at the same time, a copy of the letter concerned.   THE LAW   Whereas, in regard to the proceedings before the Regional Court of A, the Federal Court and the Constitutional Court, 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, in particular, the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) invoked by the Applicant;   Whereas it follows that the Application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;   Whereas, in respect of the confiscation of the Applicant's letter by the decision of the Regional Court of H in 1963, the Commission has carefully considered this question in the light of the last sentence of Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1);   Whereas the Commission considers that this confiscation hindered the Applicant in the presentation of his petition and thereby constituted a violation of this provision of Article 25 (Art. 25);   Whereas, however, the Commission has had regard to the facts that the Respondent Government had at a later date forwarded to the Commission the said letter and had itself taken appropriate measures to ensure in the future the full observance of Article 25 (Art. 25) by the domestic authorities concerned;   Whereas the Commission does not consider that the Applicant had finally been frustrated in the submission of his present Application and therefore decides in this case to take no further steps.   Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.