المساعد الشخصي الرقمي

مشاهدة النسخة كاملة : X. v. THE GERMANY - 2116/64 [1966] ECHR 8 (17 December 1966)



هيثم الفقى
07-15-2009, 12:47 AM
X. v. THE GERMANY - 2116/64 [1966] ECHR 8 (17 December 1966)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1897 and at present livingat Essen.The Applicant's lengthy statements may be summarised as follows:He is a disabled miner living on a pension. He has made repeatedattempts to secure the increased pension provided by law for cases ofsilicosis, from the Mining Employers Association for Workmen'sCompensation (Bergbau-Berufsgenossenschaft). It appears that his claimfor such a pension was rejected on ... 1958, by the Social Court ofAppeal (Landessozialgericht) North-Rhine-Westphalia. An applicationto reopen these proceedings (Restitutionsklage) made by the Applicantto the same Court was apparently withdrawn by him on ... 1962. TheApplicant also brought proceedings against the Ruhr MinersAssociation (Ruhrknappschaft). He has supplied no information aboutthese latter proceedings, except that they were decided by the SocialCourt of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) on ... 1959.The Applicant states that over many years he has invented processesimportant to the mechanisation and safety of the mining industry.Whereas some of these inventions were accepted, many were not. Becauseof this, the Applicant published statements concerning various personswhom he believed to be responsible for rejecting his ideas.Proceedings were brought against him in the District Court(Amtsgericht) Essen for defamation (Beleidigung). It appears thatduring the hearing the in the District Court on ... 1957, the Applicantwithdrew his remarks. He was also medically examined, in relation tothese proceedings, but was found to be fully responsible for hisactions.The Applicant states that he has made a number of complaints regardinghis inventions but the only details which he gives of these complaintsare that the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), Munich, gavea decision on ... 1964.In regard to his claims for a pension the Applicant complains that thejudicial decisions have been based on false medical opinions. He statesthat the decision of ... 1962, (when he apparently withdrew hisapplication for reopening proceedings) was contrary to law, because hewas not provided by the Court with a lawyer (Pflichtverteidiger). Heclaims to have asked the Court on five occasions for the services ofa lawyer, and to have been refused each time. He claims that all thedefendants are motivated by a desire for revenge because he is able toexpose many cases of false evidence given on their behalf in similarmatters.In regard to his inventions, the Applicant claims that since 1943 thesehave been stolen from him. He states that he has repeatedly soughtrecognition of his rights over the years, but that he has never had aproper judicial hearing. He states that he has made thirty complaints(Klageakte) and that he has sent "mountains" of files to the PublicProsecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) Essen.He further complains that his lawyers, as well as the Patent Officein Munich, are acting against him. In relation to the judgment of ...1964, of the Federal Patent Court, the Applicant complains that threejudges of the Appeal Chamber (Beschwerde-Senat) are incompetent.The Applicant also makes allegations of incompetence against theGovernment, various Secretaries of State, political figures, theFederal Court (Bundesgerichtshof), the Public Prosecutor's Office inEssen and lawyers in Essen generally.The Applicant asks the Commission to obtain a lawyer for him, as hewishes his cases to be reopened and his documents and proofs examined.He also wishes criminal charges to be brought against the persons whoare suppressing his ideas.The Applicant states that he wishes the Commission to assist him underArticles 8, 13 and 26 of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that he has not beengranted an increased pension, it is to be observed that the Convention,under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights andfreedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, underArticle 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation of oneof those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subjectof an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisationor group of individuals;Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of theCommission ratione materiae; whereas the right to a pension is notas such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by theConvention;whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its previous decisionsNos. 93/55, 1723/62, 1788/63, 1988/63; whereas no circumstances havebeen shown to exist which call for an examination of the questionsrelating to Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) to the Convention (seeCommission's decision in Application No. 2310/64); whereas it followsthat thispart of the Application is incompatible with the provisionsof the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), ofthe Convention;Whereas, in regard to the proceedings relating to the Applicant's claimfor a pension and in particular relating to his complaint that he wasnot provided with a lawyer to pursue these claims, the question ariseswhether the right to an increased pension of this kind is to beconsidered as a "civil right" within the meaning of paragraph (1) ofArticle 6 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention; whereas however the Commissiondoes not find it necessary to determine the question in the presentcase;Whereas it feels an examination of the case as it has been submitteddoes not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6)of the Convention; whereas it follows that in any event the Applicationis in this respect manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed assecuring a reopening of the proceedings relating to his unsuccessfulclaims for patents and of obtaining the assistance of a lawyer forthis purpose, it is to be observed that the Convention, under theterms of Article 1 (Art. 1) guarantees only the rights and freedoms setforth in Section I of the Convention and whereas, under Article 25,paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), in only the alleged violation of one ofthose rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject ofan application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation orgroup of individuals;Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of theCommission ratione materiae; whereas the rights alleged above arenot as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed bythe Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to itsprevious decisions (for example No. 1982/63 R. v. Austria);Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatiblewith the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed againstlawyers who were representing him in proceedings relating to his claimsfor patents, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Conventionthat the sole task of the Commission is to ensure the observance of theengagements undertaken in the Convention by the High ContractingParties, being those members of the Council of Europe which have signedthe 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 admitan application from an individual only if that individual claims to bethe victim of a violation of his rights under the Convention by one ofthe Parties which have accepted this competence of the Commission;whereas it results clearly from these Articles that the Commission hasno competence ratione personae to admit applications directed againstprivate individuals;Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatiblewith the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph(Art. 27-2) (2) (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, Volume 6, pages 348, 356);Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that criminalproceedings have not been instituted against various privateindividuals it is to be observed that the Convention, under the termsof Article 1 (Art. 1),guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forthin Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25,paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation of one of thoserights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of anapplication presented by a person, non-governmental organisation orgroup of individuals; whereas otherwise its examination is outside thecompetence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas the right tohave criminal proceedings instituted against private individuals is notas such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by theConvention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to itsconstant jurisprudence (for example Application 1599/62 - Yearbook ofthe European Convention on Human Rights Volume 6, pages 348, 356);whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatiblewith the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the Application, an examinationof the case as it has been submitted, does not disclose any appearanceof a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Conventionand in particular in Articles 6, 8 or 13 (Art. 6, 8, or 13); whereasit follows that this part of the Application is manifestly ill-foundedwithin the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of theConvention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.