CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 janvier 1970

.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 fact as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1900, and resident in Frankfurt/Main.   The applicant who is of the Jewish faith had lodged with the Commission a previous application (no. 3175/67) in which he complained of the amount of compensation for Nazi persecution which had been awarded to him. On 6 February 1968, the Commission declared inadmissible his above application on the ground that it had no competence under the Convention to examine his claim for compensation (Article 27, paragraph (2) of the Convention) and, insofar as certain court decisions were concerned, the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available to him under German law (Articles 26 and 27 paragraph (3) of the Convention).   The applicant's present application is concerned with the living conditions in the Old People's Home where he resided from .. September 1967, to early 1968. It appears that, on .. September 1967, the applicant was committed by the Social Administration (Sozialverwaltung) in Frankfurt/Main to the Old People's Home of the B. Foundation in Frankfurt. According to the applicant, the Jewish Community had assured him that he would receive strict kosher food at that home but this promise had not been kept.   Moreover, when he moved into the home, the caretaker had stored his suitcases and in particular, a carton with Jewish kosher dishes and had never returned these objects. When he had notified the police most, but not all, of the dishes, had been found in one of his suitcases, and it had been obvious that they had been used in the meanwhile.   The applicant then intended to bring an action against the B. Foundation alleging that, since he provided his own food, he should not be required to pay full rent. Furthermore, the Home should return the objects which the caretaker had taken into his custody and refused to return. For that purpose he made an application to the District Court (Armenrecht) which was refused on .. December 1968. The Court held that, in the applicant's case, the legal relationship was not a landlord - tenant relationship governed by private law, but a committal under public law in accordance with the social assistance legislation. It had therefore no competence to deal with the question of what contribution should be paid to the home. In any event, there was no basis for any complaint since the court had before it statements of two rabbis who both confirmed that only strict kosher food was served at the home. As regards the missing objects, the court found that no evidence had been submitted to the effect that these objects had even been in the possession of the home. Consequently, the proceedings proposed did not offer any reasonable prospects of success and legal aid had to be refused.   The applicant now complains to the Commission that the conditions at the home are wholly inadequate for an orthodox Jew like himself. He explains that he is not given kosher food at the home and that he is obliged to provide himself with such food. Consequently, he should not be required to pay full rent. It was true that he received 3 DM per day from the Social Office (Sozialamt) as allowance for his food but, nevertheless, an amount of 17.50 DM per day for room and board, which was actually paid, was far too much. Although the Social Office paid that money directly to the home, it was still he who suffered the loss since that amount was deducted from his monthly pension. Furthermore, his bed had not been made on numerous occasions, although this was part of the service which the home was required to give.   The applicant also complains that the authorities were responsible for the loss of various objects and, in particular, his kosher dishes.   He further complains of the proceedings by which his application for free legal aid had been refused. He explains that the first hearing was cancelled because the judge had become ill. On the other hand, his opponents, ie the managers of the home, were present at the second hearing and he was not allowed to speak.   Without referring to any specific Articles, he alleges generally violations of the Convention. He maintains in general that Jews are subjected to differential treatment in the Federal Republic of Germany.   THE LAW   Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints relating to the conditions at the Old People's Home of the B. Foundation in Frankfurt/Main, 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 no right to a particular standard of living conditions is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of the Convention is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), thereof;   Whereas insofar as the applicant's complaints are directed against the Old People's Home as such and its employees, 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 the rights set forth in the Convention provided that the Party in question has accepted this competence of the Commission has no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against private individuals or institutions;   Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previous decisions Nos. 172/56 (X. v. Sweden - Yearbook, Vol. I, p. 211) and No. 852/60 (X. v. Federal Republic of Germany ibid IV, p. 346);   Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any grounds on which the alleged conduct of the said Old People's Home or its employees could exceptionally entail the responsibility of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Convention;   Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;   Whereas the applicant further complains that he was refused free legal aid in order to institute civil proceedings against the Old People's Home and its caretaker; whereas, in examining this complaint, the Commission has had regard to Article 6, paragraph (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the Convention; whereas in respect of this provision, 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 this examination is outside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas it is true that, under Article 6, paragraph (3) (c) (Art. 6-3-c), of the Convention, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the rights, subject to certain conditions, to be granted free legal assistance;   Whereas, however, as the Commission has frequently stated, the right to free legal aid in civil cases is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of the application is again incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;   Whereas the applicant also complains that the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6), of the Convention have been violated by reason of the court proceedings relating to his application for free legal aid in that the Frankfurt District Court failed to hear him but heard his opponents;   Whereas it is true that Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention gives to every person certain guarantees "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations"; whereas, however, the Commission has previously held that the claim to obtain free legal aid is a claim to obtain assistance from public funds for the purpose of litigation and that the proceedings under which such claim is determined do not directly relate to a civil right or obligation (see Application No. 3011/57; Collection of Decisions, Vol. 25, pages 70 and 74);   Whereas, therefore, these proceedings do not fall within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention and any complaint in this respect is outside the Commission's competence ratione materiae;   Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also incompatible with the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.   Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE