CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 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. 11967/86                       by K.S.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              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 9 August 1985 by K.S. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 14 January 1986 under file N° 11967/86;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a German national born in 1936.   Living in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1973, he is now resident in Hanover. He is a bricklayer, a meteorological technician and a philosopher.           It appears from his submissions that on 3 November 1983 he was convicted by the Brunswick Regional Court (Landgericht, sitting as "Schwurgericht") of attempted homicide (versuchter Totschlag) and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.   He served this sentence in prisons at Hanover and Celle (Lower Saxony) after being detained on remand in Brunswick until his judgment became final on 8 May 1984 when his appeal on points of law (Revision) was dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof).           Between 1983 and 1985 the applicant tried to have criminal proceedings instituted against various persons.   Inter alia, he accused managers of the company he had worked for, including the victim he was convicted of having tried to kill, of defamation and of having exposed him to political persecution (politische Verdächtigung).   He also incriminated members of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) in Brunswick and one judge of the Brunswick Regional Court who had allegedly perverted the course of justice (Rechtsbeugung).   All these attempts were of no avail.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains under Articles 6, in particular paras. 3(c) and (d), 10 and 14 of the Convention that the crimnal proceedings before the Brunswick Regional Court were unfair and that he did not have the right to put questions to witnesses and to defend himself.           He further complains of his fruitless attempts to have proceedings instituted against persons he considers to have committed criminal offences.           He finally alleges violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention by the prison authorities.   He complains that they intercepted and censored his correspondence.   They had also brought the contents of private letters to the knowledge of other inmates.   He was beaten by wardens after having complained of the state of his cell.   His cell had been searched.   Criminals had been instigated and used to spy on him.   He was refused the opportunity to have a long and possibly undisturbed conversation with his wife who had petitioned for a divorce.   He could have attended his daughter's funeral only if escorted there by three uniformed officials.   Under such circumstances he had to renounce attendance at the funeral.   For more than two years he was not given permission to work or to exercise any sport.   THE LAW   1.       To the extent that the application relates to the applicant's attempts to have criminal proceedings instituted against other persons, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to institute criminal proceedings against third persons and that the guarantees set out in Article 6 (Art. 6) do not apply to those proceedings (No. 7116/75, Dec. 4.10.76, D.R. 7 p. 91).           This part of the application must therefore be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   2.       The applicant also complains under Articles 6, 10 and 14 (Art. 6, 10, 14) of the Convention about the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction by the Brunswick Regional Court.           However, according to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission "may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".    Even assuming that the applicant could be considered to have exhausted the domestic remedies at his disposal despite the fact that he did not lodge a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), the Commission notes that the decision of the Federal Court of Justice which should then be considered as the final decision regarding the subject of these particular complaints was given on 8 May 1984, whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 9 August 1985, that is more than six months after the date of this decision.           Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.   In particular, the applicant's attempts to have criminal proceedings instituted against Public Prosecutors or a judge of the trial court cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention or as otherwise affecting the calculation of the six months' time-limit.           It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   3.       Finally, the applicant alleges various violations of Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention in respect of his detention and treatment in prison.           However, again the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law.           In the present case the applicant has not shown that he has made use of the remedies available to him under German law, in particular those provided for in the Execution of Penalties Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz).   Neither has he shown that he submitted his complaints to the Federal Constitutional Court.   Consequently, he cannot be considered to have exhausted the remedies available to him under domestic law.           The Commission observes that the various letters which the applicant alleges to have addressed to different authorities or institutions cannot be considered effective remedies in the sense of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.           It follows that the applicant has not complied with the conditions as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this respect be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 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)