CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 octobre 1987

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12008/86                       by G.W.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 October 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 18 December 1985 by G.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 18 February 1986 under file N° 12008/86;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows: 12008/86     THE FACTS           The applicant, a German citizen born in 1924, is an economist resident in Troisdorf in the Federal Republic of Germany.           In criminal proceedings instituted against a certain Mr.   K., the Recklinghausen District Court (Amtsgericht) ordered the psychiatric examination of K.   Thereupon the present applicant, who was not involved in the proceedings, wrote a letter to judge W. at that Court in which he complained of the examination.           The letter stated, inter alia, that if judge W. had not realised that K. was an honourable gentleman perhaps he had become blind in his business and should let an objective testing agency examine whether he was in full possession of his mental abilities.   The letter continued:           <Translation>           "You are wasting in a wretched way scarce tax money if you         are taking the terror against Mr.   K. so far and misuse a         psychiatrist in that he should ruin, with his uncontradictable         arguments, the difficult critic in order to calumniate         him according to the Soviet method.   This has even less to         do with the administration of the rule of law than the         infamous cow with the Sunday!   You should be ashamed of         your manner of thinking which is hostile to law."           <Original>           "Sie vergeuden in mieser Weise knappe Steuermittel, wenn         Sie den Terror gegen Herrn K. so weit treiben, einen         Psychiater dazu zu missbrauchen, dass er den unbequemen Mahner         mit seinen unwiderleglichen Argumenten kaputtschreiben soll,         um ihn nach sowjetischem Vorbild zu diffamieren.   Mit         rechtsstaatlicher Rechtspflege hat das noch weniger zu tun,         als die berüchtigte Kuh mit dem Sonntag!   Schämen Sie sich         Ihrer rechtsfeindlichen Denkweise!"           On 22 November 1984 the Recklinghausen District Court convicted the applicant of insulting remarks (Beleidigung) and sentenced him to a fine of 1,500 DM.   After recapitulating the letter as well as the applicant's subsequent explanations therefor, the Court concluded that the criticism in fact intended solely to insult the judge.   The Court also found that it was unnecessary to consider further evidence proposed by the applicant.           The applicant's appeal (Berufung) was dismissed by the Bochum Regional Court (Landgericht) on 3 June 1985, though the fine was reduced to 750 DM, inter alia in view of the applicant's apology to judge W.   His appeal on points of law (Revision) was dismissed by the Hamm Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) on 23 September 1985.   On 29 November 1985 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungs- gericht) declared the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant now complains inter alia under Article 3 of the Convention that he was sentenced to an inhuman punishment.   Under Article 6 he submits, inter alia, that he could not put questions to witnesses.   Under Article 10 he complains that he was punished for having stated his opinion about the judge.   He also invokes Articles 7 and 13 of the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant now complains of the allegedly unfair proceedings in which he was involved and of the resulting sentence. He relies on Articles 3, 6, 7, 10 and 13 (Art. 3, 6, 7, 10, 13) of the Convention.           However, the Commission recalls that there is no exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention where a domestic appeal is not admitted because of a procedural mistake (see No. 6878/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 79).   In the instant case, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible as it had not been sufficiently substantiated.   Hence, the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under German law.   It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies.           In any event, after considering the case as a whole, the Commission finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.           It follows that the application must be rejected under Article 27 paras. 2 and 3 (Art. 27-2, 27-3) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission             ( H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)