CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 décembre 1966

.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 German citizen, born in 1897 and at present living at Essen.   The Applicant's lengthy statements may be summarised as follows:   He is a disabled miner living on a pension. He has made repeated attempts to secure the increased pension provided by law for cases of silicosis, from the Mining Employers Association for Workmen's Compensation (Bergbau-Berufsgenossenschaft). It appears that his claim for such a pension was rejected on ... 1958, by the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) North-Rhine-Westphalia. An application to reopen these proceedings (Restitutionsklage) made by the Applicant to the same Court was apparently withdrawn by him on ... 1962. The Applicant also brought proceedings against the Ruhr Miners Association (Ruhrknappschaft). He has supplied no information about these latter proceedings, except that they were decided by the Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on ... 1959.   The Applicant states that over many years he has invented processes important to the mechanisation and safety of the mining industry.   Whereas some of these inventions were accepted, many were not. Because of this, the Applicant published statements concerning various persons whom he believed to be responsible for rejecting his ideas.   Proceedings were brought against him in the District Court (Amtsgericht) Essen for defamation (Beleidigung). It appears that during the hearing the in the District Court on ... 1957, the Applicant withdrew his remarks. He was also medically examined, in relation to these proceedings, but was found to be fully responsible for his actions.   The Applicant states that he has made a number of complaints regarding his inventions but the only details which he gives of these complaints are that the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), Munich, gave a decision on ... 1964.   In regard to his claims for a pension the Applicant complains that the judicial decisions have been based on false medical opinions. He states that the decision of ... 1962, (when he apparently withdrew his application for reopening proceedings) was contrary to law, because he was not provided by the Court with a lawyer (Pflichtverteidiger). He claims to have asked the Court on five occasions for the services of a lawyer, and to have been refused each time. He claims that all the defendants are motivated by a desire for revenge because he is able to expose many cases of false evidence given on their behalf in similar matters.   In regard to his inventions, the Applicant claims that since 1943 these have been stolen from him. He states that he has repeatedly sought recognition of his rights over the years, but that he has never had a proper judicial hearing. He states that he has made thirty complaints (Klageakte) and that he has sent "mountains" of files to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) Essen.   He further complains that his lawyers, as well as the Patent Office in Munich, are acting against him. In relation to the judgment of ... 1964, of the Federal Patent Court, the Applicant complains that three judges of the Appeal Chamber (Beschwerde-Senat) are incompetent.   The Applicant also makes allegations of incompetence against the Government, various Secretaries of State, political figures, the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof), the Public Prosecutor's Office in Essen and lawyers in Essen generally.   The Applicant asks the Commission to obtain a lawyer for him, as he wishes his cases to be reopened and his documents and proofs examined. He also wishes criminal charges to be brought against the persons who are suppressing his ideas.   The Applicant states that he wishes the Commission to assist him under Articles 8, 13 and 26 of the Convention.   THE LAW   Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that he has not been granted an increased pension, it is to be 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 a pension 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 Nos. 93/55, 1723/62, 1788/63, 1988/63; whereas no circumstances have been shown to exist which call for an examination of the questions relating to Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) to the Convention (see Commission's decision in Application No. 2310/64); whereas it follows that thispart of the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), ofthe Convention;   Whereas, in regard to the proceedings relating to the Applicant's claim for a pension and in particular relating to his complaint that he was not provided with a lawyer to pursue these claims, the question arises whether the right to an increased pension of this kind is to be considered as a "civil right" within the meaning of paragraph (1) of Article 6 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention; whereas however the Commission does not find it necessary to determine the question in the present case;   Whereas it feels an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention; whereas it follows that in any event the Application is in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;   Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed as securing a reopening of the proceedings relating to his unsuccessful claims for patents and of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer for this purpose, it is to be 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), in 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 rights alleged above are not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decisions (for example No. 1982/63 R. v. Austria);   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;   Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed against lawyers who were representing him in proceedings relating to his claims   for patents, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention that the sole task of the Commission is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken in the Convention by the High Contracting Parties, being those members of the Council of Europe which have signed the Convention and deposited their instruments of ratification; whereas, moreover, it appears from Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention that the Commission can properly admit an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be the victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention by one of the Parties which have accepted this competence of the Commission; whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission has no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against private individuals;   Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (Art. 27-2) (2) (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 6, pages 348, 356);   Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that criminal proceedings have not been instituted against various private individuals it is to be 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 private individuals is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence (for example Application 1599/62 - Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights Volume 6, pages 348, 356); 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;   Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the Application, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Articles 6, 8 or 13 (Art. 6, 8, or 13); 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.   Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.