CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 juillet 1992

.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. 14968/89                       by I.H.                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 7 July 1992, the following members being present:                  MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 28 January 1985 by I.H. against Austria and registered on 4 May 1989 under file No. 14968/89;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         In so far as it can be determined from the applicant's submissions, the facts of the case may be summarised as follows;         The applicant, a Hungarian refugee born in 1944, currently resides in Vienna.   He previously filed Application No. 10533/83 (see below PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION).     The applicant's guardianship         According to the facts at issue in Application No. 10533/83, the District Court of Vienna City (Bezirksgericht Wien - Innere Stadt), after having heard psychiatric expert evidence, decided on 23 December 1975 to declare the applicant as lacking legal capacity and appointed a guardian (Beistand) for him.   In 1983 the Court appointed another guardian.   On 19 July 1984 the Court decided that as from 1 July 1984 onwards the applicant had an equivalent position to a person for whom a curator had been appointed to take care of all matters according to Section 273 para. 3 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).   Thus, the guardian had to ensure the necessary medical and social care for the applicant, unless the court ordered otherwise.         As regards the period thereafter, it transpires from a decision of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) of 27 September 1986 (see below) that the applicant's representative was duly informed of the decision of 19 July 1984, and that the District Court also informed the applicant thereof.        On 24 October 1984, and subsequently on frequent occasions, the applicant requested the Vienna City District Court to lift the guardianship.   On 5 July 1985 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the Public Prosecutor's Office to institute criminal proceedings against the guardian.         On 27 November 1985 the Vienna City District Court dismissed the applicant's request to lift the guardianship.   The Court noted inter alia that the applicant had introduced a large number of proceedings before various Vienna courts and that the statements to the Court itself contained many insults.   The Court considered that the applicant had not changed his inclination, previously determined in an expert opinion, to verbal aggressions.   It further observed that in the pending proceedings the applicant had not appeared on the dates on which the Court had summoned him, and that he had given no reason herefor.   The Court concluded that the applicant continued to suffer from a mental illness (psychische Krankheit) which prevented him from duly taking care of his own matters and that he therefore required the assistance of a guardian.         On 27 September 1986 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's challenge of the Amendment of the Federal Guardianship Act. The Court found inter alia that the applicant should first have appealed against the decision of the Vienna District Court of 19 July 1984, and that the appeal court could then have challenged the Act before the Constitutional Court.         On 6 October 1986 the Vienna City District Court determined the amount (Belohnung) to be paid to the guardian for the period from 6 July 1984 to 30 June 1985.   The guardian was requested to submit his next report at the latest on 1 January 1987.         On 26 December 1986 the applicant requested the Ministry of Justice to lift the guardianship.   On 22 March 1987 he introduced a disciplinary complaint against the guardian and the Vienna City District Court judge concerned.         The applicant's request to lift the guardianship was dismissed by the Vienna City District Court on 24 March 1987.   The Court, which relied on Section 273 of the Civil Code, noted inter alia that, upon the applicant's release from detention, he refused to cooperate with the guardian in order to obtain social assistance.   Moreover, in so far as the applicant had submitted statements of friends and doctors concerning his person, the Court found that the applicant had asked these persons to reiterate a statement which he had himself prepared. One doctor expressing an opinion on the applicant had never actually treated him.   The Court also noted the statement of another private expert who explained that the applicant was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder (schwere seelische Störung).   On the whole the Court concluded that the applicant continued to require assistance as he was unable himself to deal with important matters.   The Court also noted that the applicant had failed to comply with the summons to appear before court.         It appears that the applicant's further appeal was eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 26 November 1987, though the case was referred back to the District Court for further decision whether the guardianship should be lifted.         On 11 January 1988 the guardian submitted a report, numbering seven pages, to the District Court concerning the guardianship period from 1 July 1985 to 15 July 1987.   The Report included a statement on the social assistance monies received in the applicant's name.         On 11 July 1988 the Vienna City District Court approved the guardian's report for the period 16 July 1987 - 31 December 1987.         On 24 January 1990 the applicant introduced, apparently without success, a criminal action against the guardian and a judge of the Vienna Regional Court.     Administration of the applicant's monies         The applicant's guardian was called upon to administer the applicant's monies.         In this context the applicant has submitted a letter of the guardian of 24 April 1985 according to which the psychiatric hospital, in which the applicant had been detained, transferred to the guardian the sum of 6,000 AS, constituting reimbursement for vocational therapy (Arbeitsgeld).   The guardian stated in the letter that the monies which he received in the applicant's name were used (herangezogen) to pay the enormous costs for the applicant's many statements to the various authorities.         The applicant has also submitted a letter of the Vienna City Council (Magistrat) of 25 February 1986 concerning a telephone conversation with the guardian.   According to this note the applicant received social assistance which was paid to his guardian.   However, the guardian held the monies back pending a court decision.         According to a letter of 18 December 1987 of a social adviser of the Vienna "Caritas" to the applicant, he could fetch the social assistance directly from the guardian, or inform the latter of an address to which the assistance could be sent (Zustelladresse).         It appears that in respect of the applicant's flat at S.-Street (see below) the guardian was called upon to pay the rent.   However, the applicant himself also deposited monies for rent at the Donaustadt District Court.   Upon appeal, the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) found on 27 June 1988 that the applicant, who was under guardianship, could not deposit monies without the consent of the guardian.     Proceedings against the guardianship judge         In the guardianship proceedings at issue the applicant frequently challenged judge L. at the Vienna City District Court whom he regarded as an accomplice of the guardian.         It appears that one such challenge filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Vienna City District Court on 13 November 1985 and, upon appeal, by the Vienna Regional Court on 20 February 1986.   His subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was declared inadmissible on 15 May 1986 as such an appeal was not possible.   It appears that a further challenge was again dismissed by the District Court on 22 June 1987 and, upon appeal, by the Regional Court on 21 July 1987.   On 15 September 1987 the Supreme Court again declared the applicant's further appeal inadmissible.         In 1988 the applicant requested judge L. to suspend certain guardianship proceedings, the nature of which the applicant has not explained before the Commission, until it had been decided to institute criminal proceedings against a judge, apparently L. himself.   This request was rejected by the Vienna City District Court on 29 July 1988, the decision being signed by judge L.   The decision stated that suspension of such proceedings was not possible, and that if need be the judge would himself announce his bias to the competent organs of justice.   The decision further stated that the applicant had eight days time to inform the District Court to which other court, falling under the jurisdiction of the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), he wished the proceedings to be transferred; if the applicant did not do so within the time-limit, the District Court itself would effect such a transfer.     Driving licence proceedings         On 21 June 1978 the Federal Police Direction (Bundespolizei- direktion) withdrew the applicant's driving licence on account of the state of his health.   This order was served on the applicant's guardian on 26 July 1978.         On 2 May 1985 the order was served on Mr. V., one of the applicant's lawyers whom the applicant, but not his guardian, had authorised with a power of attorney.   The applicant, represented by his lawyer, apparently filed an objection against this order which was rejected by the administrative authority on 11 November 1985 as being filed belatedly.   The applicant then filed an appeal with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) in which he applied for legal aid.   On 25 November 1985 the Court informed the applicant that within one week he had to supplement the declaration of means (Vermögensbekenntnis) already submitted;   if the applicant did not comply with these conditions his request would not be granted.         Between 1986 and 1988 the applicant's lawyer filed further requests and appeals to reopen the proceedings in which the driving licence had been withdrawn.   These requests remained unsuccessful as the applicant's guardian did not give his consent thereto.   The applicant's lawyer was eventually fined for abusively filing applications.     Proceedings concerning deposition of savings bank books         On 24 June 1985 the applicant introduced an action against G.H., in which he requested receipt of certain confirmations of savings bank books (Sparbücher) deposited with a bank.   The applicant also requested legal aid.   With regard to the latter the applicant was asked to provide further documents as well as proof that his guardian had consented thereto.   As the applicant apparently did not comply with these conditions, the Vienna Regional Court rejected the action on 1 August 1985.   The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 October 1985.   The applicant's further appeal   was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10 December 1985.         Subsequently, the applicant filed a new action against G.H., again claiming receipt of apparently the same confirmations of savings bank books.   The action was rejected, upon appeal, by the Vienna Court of Appeal as the guardian had not consented thereto.   The applicant's further appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22 April 1986.     Lawyer's remark in applicant's divorce proceedings         The applicant was involved in divorce proceedings against his wife.   On 6 May 1985 a hearing took place before a court not specified by the applicant in which the lawyer of the applicant's wife claimed that the applicant was querulous.   The applicant then introduced a complaint against the lawyer to the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar (Disziplinarrat der Rechtsanwaltskammer).   The complaint was dismissed by the Council on 11 December 1985.   The applicant appealed against this decision and also challenged all the members of the Council.   Appeal and challenge were dismissed by the Supreme Appeal and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission für Rechtsanwälte) on 18 May 1987.     Criminal complaint against doctors and nurses         The applicant was detained in hospital from 1979 to 1984 (cf. Application No. 10533/83).         On 2 January 1986 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against 20 doctors and various nurses, claiming that he was still suffering from their ill-treatment.     Sickness certificates         In 1985 the applicant sought to visit a doctor.   He requested the Social Office (Sozialamt) accordingly to provide him with sickness certificates (Krankenscheine).   Apparently he received no reply.   The applicant filed frequent further requests and also attempted to institute criminal proceedings against the Social Office.   By letter of 25 February 1986 the Social Office informed the applicant that the sickness certificates had been sent to the guardian who in fact had transmitted them to the applicant's current serving address (Zustelladresse).         Subsequently, the applicant filed various further requests for illness certificates.   These were apparently sent to his guardian.     Burglary of the applicant's flat at A.-Street         On 8 June 1986 the applicant noted that there had been a burglary of his flat at A.-Street and that certain possessions, namely documents, had been robbed.   On 9 June 1986, when attempting to file a criminal report with the police, he was told that instead he could file a civil complaint about disturbance of possession (Besitzstörungsklage).     First set of disturbance proceedings concerning the applicant's flat at S.-Street         Until 1988 the applicant rented a flat at S.-Street which at one stage he shared with three sub-tenants.   It further appears that various proceedings were pending introduced by the owner of the flat at S.-Street who attempted to terminate the rent contract and to vacate the applicant's flat.         In autumn 1987 the applicant's guardian granted the owner and other persons access to the flat in order to exchange windows. According to Section 8 of the Austrian Rent Act, the tenant must grant such access to the owner if it concerns improvements of the flat. However, the guardian apparently could not let the owner into the flat as he could not unlock the door.   On 18 November 1987 the door was opened with the help of a locksmith.   All windows were changed except in the applicant's room which was too crowded.   New keys were given to the guardian who passed them on to a lawyer representing the applicant.         The applicant filed complaints about disturbance of possessions against the guardian, the owner and the locksmith.   The complaints against the owner and the locksmith were refused as the guardian did not consent thereto.   In respect of the complaints against the guardian the Vienna City District Court requested an improvement of the statement (Verbesserungsauftrag) as certain conditions had not been met; thus, the applicant had not sufficiently explained why he was filing a complaint against the guardian;   the Court also noted that in such proceedings a special curator (Kollisionskurator) would have to be appointed to consent to the complaint.   By decision of 29 January 1988 the Court rejected the complaint finding that its deficiencies could not be healed in view of the applicant's lack of co-operation. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Court on 28 June 1988.     Settlement in respect of the applicant's flat at S.-Street         On 26 February 1988 the guardian again granted the owner of the applicant's flat at S.-Street access to the flat in order to change the last window.   Upon attempting entrance into the flat it was noticed that the lock had been ruined; a locksmith was again employed.         The guardian then wrote a letter to the applicant on 29 February 1988 in which he explained the events.   The applicant was told that he could fetch the new keys from the guardian until 18 March 1988.   If the applicant failed to do so, the guardian would take this as a further indication that the applicant did not need the flat.   In the guardian's opinion, there was no reason to maintain the rent, which implied costs for the applicant, if he did not use the flat.   In so far as it can be determined the applicant did not react to this letter.         On 28 April 1988 the guardian and the owner of the flat reached a settlement before the Donaustadt District Court concerning the termination of the rent contract and the vacation of the applicant's flat.   This settlement was confirmed by the Vienna City District Court on 23 June 1988.         The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the District Court in respect of which the Vienna Regional Court on 10 August 1988 invited the applicant to make certain improvements within a time-limit of 14 days.   As the improvements were not made, the Regional Court dismissed the appeal as being out of time.   The applicant's request for reinstitution into the time-limit was dismissed by the Regional Court.   The applicant then filed further appeals which the Supreme Court dismissed on 6 April 1989 as being out of time.     Further disturbance proceedings against sub-tenants of the applicant's flat at S.-Street         On 6 November 1986 the applicant noted that the lock of the main door to the flat had been changed.   He had the lock opened by a lock- smith, whereupon he noticed that the lock to his room had been broken up.   As from 12 November 1986 onwards he filed various complaints about disturbance of possessions and requests for injunctions against the sub-tenants and the owner of the flat.   Eventually, the complaints were rejected by the Donaustadt District Court on 18 December 1987 and, upon appeal, by the Vienna Regional Court on 19 December 1988.         The applicant introduced other disturbance proceedings inter alia against the sub-tenants on 29 December 1986.         A hearing was held on 15 June 1989.   At the hearing the applicant claimed that he had so far not heard of the settlement reached between the applicant's guardian and the owner of the flat (see above).   Also at the hearing the guardian withdrew his consent previously granted to the applicant to conduct the disturbance proceedings.         On 31 July 1989 the Donaustadt District Court terminated these proceedings in view of the settlement reached.     Proceedings against K.K.         It appears that the applicant filed an action against a certain K.K. for the recovery of 18,000 AS.   On 11 February 1988 the Hernals District Court dismissed the action as the applicant's guardian had declined to consent thereto.     Prohibition of residence in Austria         The Vienna Regional Court sentenced the applicant on 9 November 1972 to two years' imprisonment inter alia for committing acts of physical aggression against his wife and clients (cf. Application No. 10533/83).         The present case relates to the additional punishment, imposed on the applicant in that judgment, of a banishment from Austria (Landesverweisung).         In 1989 the applicant filed various requests to the Aliens' Police (Fremdenpolizei) to lift this prohibition.   By decision of 28 May 1990 the Aliens' Police rejected the request.   It noted that the applicant had so far not served the entire punishment causing the prohibition.   The applicant was also without means.         It appears that the applicant subsequently filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court in respect of which he requested legal aid.     Passport proceedings         On 12 March 1986 a passport was issued for the applicant, valid for one year, which he at first did not fetch.         Subsequently, however, the applicant apparently did receive a passport.   On 29 June 1989 he filed a request for its prolongation. On 19 February 1990 he complained that the prolongation had not yet been issued.   The applicant subsequently filed complaints with the Ministry of the Interior.     Correspondence         In 1987 the Austrian postal services did not serve various letters on the applicant as he did not possess a valid document to prove his identity.         In September 1987 the applicant allegedly sent a letter without a stamp to the Commission, but also without his own address on the envelope.   The letter was returned to his address.   The photocopy submitted by the applicant of the front page of the envelope shows a postmark of 21 September 1987.     Occurrences at a police station on 9 June 1986         In the context of the burglary of the applicant's flat at A.-Street, the applicant went to the police station on 9 June 1986 to file a criminal report (see above).   The applicant then went with the police to inspect the flat and was told by the police that he should file a civil complaint about disturbance of possession.         He states that, when he nevertheless urged the police to investigate the matter, the latter asked him to prove his identity. As he could not do so, the police took him back to the police station at about noon. It appears that the applicant was further questioned at the police station until 15h00.         The applicant thereupon filed a complaint with the Austrian Constitutional Court about illegal detention and requested legal aid. On 1 December 1986 the Court dismissed the request for legal aid as the applicant's guardian had failed to consent to the proceedings at issue.       Occurrences at a police office on 11 July 1989         The applicant was asked to give evidence as a witness in criminal proceedings against another person.   For this purpose he went to the Economic Police (Wirtschaftspolizei) on 11 July 1989.   When he wanted to leave, he was told he could not do so as he was sought in order to establish his whereabouts (zur Aufenthaltsermittlung ausgeschrieben). The search warrant had apparently been issued by an investigating judge. The applicant apparently left the police office a few hours later, though he has not stated the precise time.   Before leaving the office he was asked to sign a statement according to which he would report as soon as possible to the investigating judge issuing the search warrant.   The applicant has not submitted a copy of the statement.         The applicant then filed a criminal complaint against the investigating judge which apparently remained unsuccessful; he apparently also filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.     Occurrences at a police station on 12 October 1990         On 12 October 1990, when attempting to cross the border from Austria to the Czechoslovakia at about 12h00, the applicant was stopped by the Austrian customs.   At about 14h30 two police officers brought him to the Hainburg police station where he was informed of the two reasons for his arrest.   One reason was apparently that he was suspected of having participated in a bank robbery; in respect of this ground the applicant pointed out that the matter had long been resolved.   A second reason was that the applicant was sought in order to establish his whereabouts (Aufenthaltsermittlung).         At 16h45 the applicant was released after having signed a statement according to which he would report as soon as possible to the authority looking for him.   According to the statement signed, a court was looking for the applicant in order to establish his whereabouts.         The applicant then filed a criminal complaint against the Federal Police Direction which apparently remained unsuccessful;   he apparently also filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.     Occurrences at a police station on 14 March 1991         The applicant claims that on 14 March 1991 at 18h30 he was arrested and detained at a police station until 24h00.   He claims that the police thereby told him that he was neither arrested nor was he free to leave.   The police apparently questioned the applicant as to the legality of his residence in Austria.   A further reason was apparently that the applicant was sought in order to be served an order stating that criminal proceedings instituted against him had been terminated.         The applicant apparently filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.     Guardian's letter to a company         The applicant was involved in a company dealing with satellite antennae.   On 18 February 1991 the applicant's guardian sent a copy of the District Court's decision concerning the establishment of guardianship of 19 July 1984 to a lawyer of the company.   The company sent copies of this decision together with the applicant's photograph to different trade partners and to the applicant's lawyer.     Paternity proceedings         On 2 November 1990 the applicant requested the Donaustadt District Court to acknowledge paternity of his son Ch.   On 19 February 1991 the Court declined jurisdiction, finding that the Vienna City District Court was competent.   The applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Court on 12 September 1991.   The Court found in particular that the District Court's decision had been lawful; it further noted that it would be simpler for the applicant to apply for acknowledgment of paternity at the Registrar's Office (Geburtsstandesamt).     COMPLAINTS         Under Articles 1 - 10, 12 - 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the applicant raises the following complaints:   1.     As regards the guardianship the applicant complains that in his case a guardian was in fact never appointed with legal force.   He further complains of the refusal of the Austrian authorities to lift the guardianship.   He also complains that in the proceedings concerning his guardianship he was not heard.   The applicant finally complains that various other requests and appeals were refused.   2.     The applicant complains that the guardian enriched himself when administering the applicant's monies.   The applicant further complains that the social security monies are not directly paid out to him.   3.     The applicant complains about the bias of judge L. of the Vienna City District Court claiming that L. acted as an accomplice to the guardian, supervised him incorrectly, and decided against the applicant's interests.   He also complains that judge L. acted in the proceedings leading to a settlement between the owner of the applicant's flat at S.-Street and the guardian.   4.     The applicant complains about the proceedings concerning withdrawal of his driving licence and that the lawyer was fined for abusively filing applications.   5.     In respect of the different proceedings concerning the deposition of savings bank books the applicant complains that he was not granted legal aid, and that he could not file the action without the consent of his guardian.   He also complains of the various judges concerned.   6.     The applicant further complains of the outcome of the proceedings which he attempted to institute on account of the lawyer's remark in his divorce proceedings, in particular that he could not file the complaint without the consent of his guardian.   7.     The applicant's unsuccessful criminal complaint against doctors and nurses is the object of a further complaint.   8.     The applicant also complains of inhuman and degrading treatment in that he was not issued sickness certificates despite his bad physical health.   9.     The applicant complains of the burglary of his flat at A.-Street and that he could not introduce a criminal complaint (Strafanzeige) about this.   10.    The applicant also complains about the unlawfulness, and the length, of the disturbance proceedings concerning his flat, and their outcome, stating that the settlement reached was against his interest. He appears to complain that he was not served the settlement before the hearing of 15 June 1989.   The applicant also complains that his property was robbed.   11.    Various complaints are raised against the sub-tenants at S.-Street, inter alia that the applicant could not use his flat, as his lock had been changed, from 6 November 1986 onwards.   He submits that the courts concerned did not deal with his various complaints about the disturbance of possessions in adequate time.   12.    The applicant complains that his action against K.K. was dismissed as his guardian had declined to consent thereto.   13.    The applicant complains that in view of his prohibition of residence in Austria he cannot obtain permission to work, that the possibilities of social assistance are restricted, and that he has to earn his living by unlawful means.   He may also be understood as complaining of unfairness of the proceedings concerned.   14.    The applicant further complains that he was not provided with a passport.   15.    The applicant complains of an interference with his corres- pondence in that the authorities did not serve various letters on him as he could not prove his identity.   The applicant also complains that his mail was opened by the authorities: thus, a letter which he sent without a stamp to the Commission, but also without his own address on the envelope, was returned to his address.   16.    The applicant complains about unlawful detention by the police on 9 June 1986, 11 July 1989, 12 October 1990 and 14 March 1991.   17.    The applicant complains about the guardian's letter to a company of 18 February 1991, apparently as causing prejudice to his business interests.   18.    The applicant complains that the authorities refuse to acknowledge his paternity of his son.   19.    Finally, the applicant submits documents concerning other unspecified proceedings in respect of which he also appears to raise complaints.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   Application No. 10533/83         On 27 November 1978 the applicant introduced an application with the Commission which was registered on 22 August 1983 under No. 10533/83.   In his application he complained inter alia under Articles 2 - 6,   8 - 10, and 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of deprivation of liberty, conditions of detention, interference with his correspondence, and lack of access to court and of effective remedies in the domestic proceedings.         By partial decision of 10 March 1988 the Commission declared inadmissible parts of the application.   On 4 October 1989 the Commission declared admissible certain complaints of the applicant and declared inadmissible the remainder of the application. With regard to the complaints declared admissible, the Commission on 1 March 1991 adopted its Report under Article 31 of the Convention.   The case is at present pending before the Court.         Application No. 10533/83 concerned circumstances up to the applicant's release from detention in a psychiatric hospital on 14 November 1984.     The present application         The applicant's first communication to the Commission after this date relating to a new application was on 28 January 1985.         The present application was registered on 4 May 1989.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols about proceedings and their outcome.     Date of introduction   2.     The Commission observes that the applicant regularly corresponds with the Secretariat and that in his various submissions he frequently raises new complaints or expands on previous ones.   The Commission further notes that Application No. 10533/83 related to circumstances up to the applicant's release from detention on remand on 14 November 1984 (see Dec. 4.10.89).   The applicant's first communication to the Commission after this date relating to a new application was on 28 January 1985.   The Commission therefore considers that on this date the applicant introduced his present application.   Complaint which is substantially the same as the previous application   3.     The applicant complains that in his case a guardian was never appointed with legal force.   However, the Commission notes that this complaint relates back to proceedings leading to the decision of the District Court of Vienna City of 23 December 1975, and that the applicant already complained of these proceedings before the Commission in Application No. 10533/83.   Thus, the present complaint is essentially the same as that raised in Application No. 10533/83, and this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.     As to the compatibility of the complaints with the Convention   4.     In so far as the applicant may be understood as introducing complaints against private persons, for instance the sub-tenants at his flat in S.-Street, the Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention it may only receive applications in which the applicant alleges a violation by one of the Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the Commission.   The Commission may not, therefore, receive applications directed against private individuals, and this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   5.     In so far as the applicant complains that he could not introduce a criminal complaint about the burglary of his flat at A.-Street, against certain doctors, or against the Social Office, the Commission considers that the right to introduce criminal proceedings against third persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.         The applicant also complains of his prohibition of residence in Austria, leading to financial difficulties, and that he was not provided with a passport.   He also complains that the Social Office did not issue an illness certificate.   However, the Commission considers that the right of an alien to reside in a particular country, or to obtain a passport therefrom, is not as such guaranteed by the Convention.   Furthermore, there is no right as such under the Convention to social security assistance.         In so far as the applicant may be understood as complaining under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention about the proceedings concerning the prohibition of residence in Austria, the Commission notes that such proceedings do not concern "the determination of a person's civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   In so far as the applicant complains about the fine which was imposed on his lawyer for abusively filing applications, as resulting in unfair proceedings, the Commission notes that the fine was issued in proceedings concerning the withdrawal of the applicant's driving licence; however, such proceedings also do not fall to be considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies   6.     The applicant complains about detention by the police on 9 June 1986, 11 July 1989, 12 October 1990 and 14 March 1991.         According to Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, everyone has the right to liberty and security of person and no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the cases set out in subparas. 1 (a) -(e) and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.         Under 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.         In respect of his alleged detention on 11 July 1989, 12 October 1990 and 14 March 1991 the applicant has not shown that he filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court.   In this respect he has not therefore complied with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.         Furthermore, the applicant's appeal to the Constitutional Court complaining of detention on 9 June 1986 was refused as the applicant failed to obtain the consent of his guardian for filing the appeal. However, domestic remedies have not been exhausted where a domestic remedy is not admitted because of a procedural omission or mistake (see No. 17878/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 79).         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.     Complaints examined under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention   7.     The applicant may be understood as complaining about a lack of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   a)     Thus, the applicant complains that his guardian must give his consent to legal action which the applicant intends to take.   The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         The Commission recalls its decision in Application No. 10533/83 (Dec. 4.10.89) that it was one of the main purposes of the measures taken against the applicant to prevent vexatious litigation.   This interference may raise an issue under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in so far as his access to court was impeded with regard to proceedings which determined his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of this provision.         Nevertheless, according to the Convention organs' case-law, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not debar States from making regulations, in the interests of the good administration of justice, concerning the access to courts (see No. 6916/75, Dec. 8.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 107).         The Commission considers that it is a normal practice in many Convention States that a person of unsound mind may be found lacking legal capacity to act in court, and that in such cases a guardian may be appointed for him and required to give consent to any legal action which this person may intend to take.   In the Commission's view this is compatible with the aim and purpose of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   b)     The applicant also complains that he was unjustifiably denied legal aid, for instance in the proceedings concerning the savings bank books.   However, the Commission considers that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) also does not debar States, in the interests of the good administration of justice, from attaching certain conditions to the granting of legal aid, for instance the submission of sufficient information in order to establish the indigence of the person concerned.   c)     The Commission finds no indication of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the complaints under a) and b) above and rejects this part of the application as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   8.     Also under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the applicant may be understood as complaining about further guardianship proceedings.   a)     In this respect the Commission recalls its decision in Application No. 10533/83 (Dec. 4.10.89) according to which the performance by the guardian of his duties concerns the "civil rights" of the person placed under guardianship and that a court procedure is therefore necessary if a serious and genuine dispute arises between the person concerned and the guardian.   b)     In the present case the Commission considers that the guardian's activities were under the constant supervision of the competent guardianship court, as provided for by Austrian law.   It appears in particular that the guardianship court examined and then approved the reports submitted by the guardian.   c)     In so far as the applicant complains about bias of judge L., the Commission considers that the applicant, who claims that the judge constantly decides against his interests, has not sufficiently substantiated this complaint.   In any event it appears from the decision of the District Court of 29 July 1988 that the applicant was free to request transfer of the case to another guardianship court.   d)     The applicant complains that in the proceedings concerning his guardianship he was not heard.   However, the Commission notes on the one hand the decisions of the District Court of 27 November 1985 and 24 March 1987 according to which it had summoned the applicant to the court, though he had not appeared, and had not given any reasons therefor.   On the other hand, the Commission notes that the applicant filed various submissions with the District Court, consisting of statements of friends and doctors, inter alia a private expert opinion concerning the applicant, which the Court in its decision of 24 March 1987 carefully considered and assessed.   e)     On the whole there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings in question were not conducted in conformity with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   9.     The applicant complains about other proceedings in which he has been involved and their outcome.         With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention.   In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.   The Commission refers, on this point, to its established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).         It is true that the applicant also raises complaints about the length and the fairness of certain proceedings which the Commission has examined under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   a)     Thus, the applicant complains about the length of various proceedings, in particular concerning the different complaints about disturbance of possessions which he introduced against the sub-tenants of the flat at S.-Street, as well as the complaint filed against the settlement reached between the guardian and the owner of the flat which the applicant had rented.         Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ...