CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 octobre 1967

.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 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 1965.   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 Verfassungsschutz).   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    hearing.   He alleges violations of Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of the Protocol.   THE LAW   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.