هيثم الفقى
07-15-2009, 12:52 AM
X. v. THE GERMANY - 2413/65 [1966] ECHR 10 (16 December 1966)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a British subject, born in 1924 and at presentdetained in the prison of Straubing (Federal Republic of Germany). Hehas a number of previous convictions in England.On ... 1964, he was convicted by the Regional Court (Grosse Strafkammerdes Landgerichts) of Würzburg of seven offence of indecent assault,theft, fraud, forgery and unauthorised wearing of a uniform. He wassentenced to a total of three and a half years' imprisonment. Itappears from the Applicant's statement that, before his arrest, theGerman Police had launched an intensive search for him. They informedthe Press that he was wanted for offenses of murder, rape andkidnapping. As a result there were reports in newspapers, on radio andtelevision that the Applicant was a dangerous criminal, a *** maniacand killer of women and children. He was called the "phantom murderer".He was arrested on ... 1964, on a charge of attempted rape. After hisarrest, detailed press report made public the prosecution case againsthim.The Applicant has made numerous complaints about this publicity. On ...1964, his lawyer wrote to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice complainingthat the defence had been prejudiced. This complaint was apparentlyrejected on .. 1964.On ... 1964, the Applicant complained to a member of the United KingdomParliament. He received the reply that the complaint had been sent tothe Home Secretary, who had no authority to intervene.On ... 1964, the Applicant lodged another complaint with the BavarianMinistry of Internal Affairs, accusing a police official, named D, ofmaking the prejudicial disclosures to the press. It appears that thecomplaint was rejected.On ... 1965, he brought criminal charges (Strafanzeige) concerning anarticle in the "8 Uhr Blatt". On ... 1965, he was informed by theOffice of the Public Prosecutor at the Regional Court of Nuremberg thatthe proceedings had been discontinued (eingestellt) because thelimitation period for a prosecution had expired.It appears that the Applicant also brought criminal charges on ... and... 1965, against the same police official and against the publication"Bild Zeitung" for contravention of the Press Laws (Pressegesetz) andinsults (Beleidigung). These proceedings were also discontinued(eingestellt) by the Senior Public Prosecutor (LeitenderOberstaatsanwalt) of the Regional Court of Hamburg because thelimitation period had expired.The Applicant complains that the press publicity before the trial,instigated by the police, violated Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2),in conjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He statesthat he has no legal redress and has been unable to clear his name. Hisfamily and fiancée left him on account of the publicity.He complains that on ... 1964, the Regional Court of Flensburg refusedto translate an indictment against him into English. As he could notread German, he alleges a violation of Article 5, paragraph (2), andArticle 6, paragraph (3) (a), of the Convention. No further detailshave been given of these proceedings.The Applicant makes a large number of complaints about the conditionsin the prison of Straubing. He states that there is no church orminister of the Church of England in the area of Straubing. Hetherefore has no opportunity to worship in his faith and is deprivedof spiritual comfort. His request to be transferred to Celle, wherethere is a Church of England minister, has been refused. It seems thatthis matter was the subject of an unsuccessful application to theBavarian Ministry of Justice. The Applicant alleges a continuingviolation of Article 9, paragraph (1), in conjunction with Articles 16,17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that his treatment in prison amounts tohumiliation, torture and degradation. He has to live together with warcriminals and murderers.He further states that the conditions in the prison are a mental andphysical punishment designed for the destruction of criminals. Hestates that there has been press comment about brutality in the prison.On ... 1965, he brought charges of manslaughter arising from the deathof prisoners to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office inNuremberg. On ... 1965, he was informed that there was no indicationof any criminal conduct and the proceedings were discontinued.The Applicant states that he is an "85 % war pensioned epilepticparalytic". He had been successfully undergoing treatment by drugs. Inprison he received no drugs and his condition is getting worse and hisepileptic fits are more frequent. He has to spend 23 hours a day in astone cell, sleeping only on an old mattress on the floor, and has noprotection against injuring himself in a fit. On eight occasions he hasbeen punished by being placed in the "bunker", a steel cage in thepunishment cell in which one can only stand or sit. On one occasion hishands were fastened behind his back. He accuses the prison guards ofenjoying his suffering and states that the torture resembles that inNazi concentration camps.He claims that the prison authorities take no account of his historyof ill-health. On ... 1966, he was found fit for bunker punishment bythe prison doctor without being seen by the doctor on that day. Onanother occasion, after he had been on hunger strike for six days, hewas found fit for further punishment. In his letter of ... 1966, to theBavarian Minister of Justice he complains of these matters and statesthat on a visit to the prison the Minister saw him undergoing "bunker"punishment.On ... 1965, after a fit, he was sent to the psychiatric section. Hestates that "strait jackets, padded cells, violence and drug sedationare the order of the day" and that the guards exercised their brutalityon the prisoners. He was treated as though he was insane and subjectedto a degrading physical search. He complained in writing to the prisondirector who refused to read his letter.He complains that the prison diet is poor, amounting to only 1.000calories a day. On this prisoners have to work eight hours a day. On... 1965, he started a hunger strike in protest against the poor food.On ... he was placed on report (Strafreport) for going on hunger strikeand for insulting the prison food. He states that there is no appealagainst this treatment. He gives the names of witnesses who support hisallegations but states that the other prisoners do not complain forfear of punishment.He alleges that the treatment he has to suffer in the prison is inhumanand degrading and violates Article 3 in conjunction with Articles 14,17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that he and other prisoners are forced to work 42hours a week for private industries but have no right to wages. Theprivate industries pay normal wages to the Bavarian State for the workdone by the prisoners but the latter only receive between 0.30 DM and0.80 DM a day. Over and above their normal task they can only earn upto 20 DM a month. The Applicant has unsuccessfully brought anindictment against the Management Committee (Vorstand) and the BavarianState, accusing them of slavery and exploitation of prisoners. Thi***ploitation arises in the sale of articles made by the prisoners. Theprisoners are also charged admission fees to see films which areprovided to the prison free of charge. He asks the Commission not todecide these complaints without investigating them and hearing thewitnesses named in his letter of ... 1965.He alleges violations of Article 4, in conjunction with Articles 14,17 and 18 of the Convention in this respect.The Applicant complains that there is no freedom of opinion orexpression in the prison. Letters in which he expressed his opinion ofthe prison and its staff were suppressed. For one expression in aletter he was punished by loss of correspondence with his family forthree months.He alleges that these restrictions violate Articles 8, 9 and 10 inconjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that he was not permitted to write a letter "inpursuit of a law action against a newspaper". He therefore made ademonstration and went on hunger strike. For this he was punished butwas later permitted to write the letter. Other letters are suppressedor destroyed. The Applicant complained of this to the Minister ofJustice on ... and ... 1965.The Applicant makes a general complaint of the length of detentionpending trial in the Federal Republic, alleging violation of Articles5 and 6 of the Convention. He does not state that these complaintsrelate to his own case.In his letter of ... 1965, the Applicant states that the disciplinaryprocedure for putting prisoners on "report" is unjust. Not only are thereports made by the prison guards false and the prisoners given no timeto prepare a defence but the decision is taken regardless of theevidence. He alleges that Article 6, paragraph (3) (a) and (b), whichapply to such proceedings, are violated. On ... 1966, he broughtcharges for causing bodily harm (Körperverletzung im Amt) against fourpersons. He complained that he had been punished without investigation,in a manner dangerous to health. The Public Prosecutor's Office at theRegional Court of Regensburg rejected the charges on ... 1966.With regard to Article 26 of the Convention, the Applicant states thatin practice a prisoner has no right to appeal. The Bavarian Ministryof Justice has rejected all the complaints he has made.These have dealtwith all the allegations made in his complaint to the Commission.On ... 1966, he was able to raise his complaints again in an interviewwith members of the Bavarian Parliament but without success.The Applicant complains of interference with his communications withthe Commission. He has been prevented from obtaining further evidencefrom a newspaper, the "8 Uhr Blatt". In ... 1966 letters to otherpersons were not sent because he could not pay postage. His supply ofwriting paper is restricted in contravention of a decision of the Courtof Appeal of Munich. The fact that all letters are censored violatesArticles 25 and 33 of the Convention, in the Applicant's view.The Applicant has asked the Commission to send a delegation toinvestigate his allegations and was originally willing to contribute£ 100 for the cost. The Applicant stated in ... 1966 that a lawyer, Dr.B, had taken up his case. This lawyer has not communicated with theCommission.In all, the Applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6,8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 33 of the Convention.On 11th August, 1965, the Applicant stated that he would "cancel" hisApplication unless he was assured that it would be fairly investigated.On 7th July, 1966, he wrote "in view of your refusal to assist me inthese exceptional circumstances and the inordinate length of timeinvolved and money wasted in dealing with my Application, I herewithcancel my Application ...".On 24th August, 1966, the Applicant asked for the return of all hisdocuments, for the purpose of evidence in other court actions.On 10th November, 1966, the Applicant wrote to the Commission statingthat, on the advice of his solicitor, he wished not to abandon hisprevious request to withdraw his Application. He asked the Commissionto realise that the degrading and demoralising conditions of hisimprisonment caused him to write his letter withdrawing hisApplication. He apologised for its impolite terms.THE LAWWhereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed againstpress, radio or television enterprises and relate to alleged defamatoryreports made before or during his trial in the Regional Court ofWürzburg, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention thatthe 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 the rights set forth in the Conventionprovided that the Party in question has accepted this competence of theCommission; whereas it results clearly from these Articles that theCommission has no competence ratione personae to admit applicationsdirected against private individuals or enterprises;Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previousdecisions Nos. 172/56 (S. v. Sweden - Yearbook I, page 211) and 852/60(S. v. Federal Republic of Germany - ibid. IV, page 346); whereas, inany event, the right to reputation is not as such guaranteed by theConvention;Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted does notdisclose any grounds on which the alleged conduct of the press, radioor television enterprises concerned could exceptionally entail theresponsibility of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germanyunder the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of theApplication is incompatible within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints that he was prejudicedat this trial in the Regional Court of Würzburg as a result of press,radio or television reports, it is to be observed that, under Article26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with amatter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to thegenerally recognised rules of international law; and whereas theApplicant failed to appeal against his conviction; whereas, therefore,he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitteddoes not disclose the existence of any special circumstances whichmight have absolved the Applicant, according to the generallyrecognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domesticremedies at his disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to theexhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27,paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention has not been compliedwith by the Applicant;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that on ... 1964, theRegional Court of Flensburg refused to translate into English anindictment against him, he has failed to supply any details of theseproceedings or to show that he lodged an appeal in respect of them;whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies availableto him under German law and has not complied with the condition laiddown in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of theConvention;Whereas the same ground of inadmissibility also applies in regard tothe Applicant's complaints concerning his treatment in prison andrelating to his detention in a so-called 'steel cage', as he failed toseize the competent courts of these complaints;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning thestandard of food in the prison of Straubing and to the allegedobligation of prisoners to work for low wages, an examination of thecase as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of aviolation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention andin particular in Articles 3 and 4 (Art. 3, 4); whereas it follows thatthis part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within it hemeaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the absenceof a priest of the Church of England or of facilities for worshipaccording to the rites of the Church of England in the prison ofStraubing, it is to be observed that there is no evidence that aProtestant pastor or facilities for worship in the Protestant religionare not available to the Applicant; whereas, therefore, 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 Article 9 (Art. 9); whereas it follows that thispart of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning theallegedly unfair system of dealing with disciplinary offenses in theprison of Straubing and in so far as the Applicant alleges violationsof Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), in relationto such proceedings against him, it is to be observed that these twoprovisions guarantee certain procedural rights to 'everyone chargedwith a criminal offence'; whereas the Applicant was clearly not aperson "charged with a criminal offence"; whereas it follows that therights set out in Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), are not applicable to the proceedings of which the Applicantcomplains; whereas, therefore, this part of the Application isincompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of interference by theprison authorities with his correspondence, by censoring his lettersand restricting his correspondence to third persons, it is to beobserved that, although Article 8 of the Convention, in paragraph (1)(Art. 8-1), provides that everyone has the right to respect for hiscorrespondence, paragraph (2) of the same Article (Art. 8-2) permitsinterference by a public authority with the exercise of these rightswhere such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessaryin a democratic society, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder orcrime;Whereas, in cases in which the rights guaranteed in Article 8 (Art. 8)are at issue, the Commission has the right and indeed the ability toappreciate whether or not interference by a public authority fulfilsthe conditions laid down in paragraph (2) of the Article (Art. 8-2);whereas the Commission has frequently held that this Article leaves theContracting Parties a certain margin of appreciation in determining thelimits which may be placed on the right in question; whereas anexamination of the case as it has been submitted does not show that anyinterference with the Applicant's freedom of correspondence was in anyway an abuse of the Respondent Government's right to impose suchlimitations or was carried out in a manner contrary to the Convention;whereas it follows that no appearance of a violation of the rights andfreedoms guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention has beendisclosed;Whereas, therefore, this part of the Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of interference withhis correspondence with the Commission, as a result of the restrictionor censorship of his letters, the Commission has examined thisallegation in the light of Article 25 (Art. 25); whereas it is to beobserved that the Applicant has been able to write frequently and atlength to the Commission;Whereas the Commission does not find any reason to believe that theApplicant has been in any way hindered in the effective exercise of hisright of petition under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention;Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a British subject, born in 1924 and at presentdetained in the prison of Straubing (Federal Republic of Germany). Hehas a number of previous convictions in England.On ... 1964, he was convicted by the Regional Court (Grosse Strafkammerdes Landgerichts) of Würzburg of seven offence of indecent assault,theft, fraud, forgery and unauthorised wearing of a uniform. He wassentenced to a total of three and a half years' imprisonment. Itappears from the Applicant's statement that, before his arrest, theGerman Police had launched an intensive search for him. They informedthe Press that he was wanted for offenses of murder, rape andkidnapping. As a result there were reports in newspapers, on radio andtelevision that the Applicant was a dangerous criminal, a *** maniacand killer of women and children. He was called the "phantom murderer".He was arrested on ... 1964, on a charge of attempted rape. After hisarrest, detailed press report made public the prosecution case againsthim.The Applicant has made numerous complaints about this publicity. On ...1964, his lawyer wrote to the Bavarian Ministry of Justice complainingthat the defence had been prejudiced. This complaint was apparentlyrejected on .. 1964.On ... 1964, the Applicant complained to a member of the United KingdomParliament. He received the reply that the complaint had been sent tothe Home Secretary, who had no authority to intervene.On ... 1964, the Applicant lodged another complaint with the BavarianMinistry of Internal Affairs, accusing a police official, named D, ofmaking the prejudicial disclosures to the press. It appears that thecomplaint was rejected.On ... 1965, he brought criminal charges (Strafanzeige) concerning anarticle in the "8 Uhr Blatt". On ... 1965, he was informed by theOffice of the Public Prosecutor at the Regional Court of Nuremberg thatthe proceedings had been discontinued (eingestellt) because thelimitation period for a prosecution had expired.It appears that the Applicant also brought criminal charges on ... and... 1965, against the same police official and against the publication"Bild Zeitung" for contravention of the Press Laws (Pressegesetz) andinsults (Beleidigung). These proceedings were also discontinued(eingestellt) by the Senior Public Prosecutor (LeitenderOberstaatsanwalt) of the Regional Court of Hamburg because thelimitation period had expired.The Applicant complains that the press publicity before the trial,instigated by the police, violated Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2),in conjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He statesthat he has no legal redress and has been unable to clear his name. Hisfamily and fiancée left him on account of the publicity.He complains that on ... 1964, the Regional Court of Flensburg refusedto translate an indictment against him into English. As he could notread German, he alleges a violation of Article 5, paragraph (2), andArticle 6, paragraph (3) (a), of the Convention. No further detailshave been given of these proceedings.The Applicant makes a large number of complaints about the conditionsin the prison of Straubing. He states that there is no church orminister of the Church of England in the area of Straubing. Hetherefore has no opportunity to worship in his faith and is deprivedof spiritual comfort. His request to be transferred to Celle, wherethere is a Church of England minister, has been refused. It seems thatthis matter was the subject of an unsuccessful application to theBavarian Ministry of Justice. The Applicant alleges a continuingviolation of Article 9, paragraph (1), in conjunction with Articles 16,17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that his treatment in prison amounts tohumiliation, torture and degradation. He has to live together with warcriminals and murderers.He further states that the conditions in the prison are a mental andphysical punishment designed for the destruction of criminals. Hestates that there has been press comment about brutality in the prison.On ... 1965, he brought charges of manslaughter arising from the deathof prisoners to the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office inNuremberg. On ... 1965, he was informed that there was no indicationof any criminal conduct and the proceedings were discontinued.The Applicant states that he is an "85 % war pensioned epilepticparalytic". He had been successfully undergoing treatment by drugs. Inprison he received no drugs and his condition is getting worse and hisepileptic fits are more frequent. He has to spend 23 hours a day in astone cell, sleeping only on an old mattress on the floor, and has noprotection against injuring himself in a fit. On eight occasions he hasbeen punished by being placed in the "bunker", a steel cage in thepunishment cell in which one can only stand or sit. On one occasion hishands were fastened behind his back. He accuses the prison guards ofenjoying his suffering and states that the torture resembles that inNazi concentration camps.He claims that the prison authorities take no account of his historyof ill-health. On ... 1966, he was found fit for bunker punishment bythe prison doctor without being seen by the doctor on that day. Onanother occasion, after he had been on hunger strike for six days, hewas found fit for further punishment. In his letter of ... 1966, to theBavarian Minister of Justice he complains of these matters and statesthat on a visit to the prison the Minister saw him undergoing "bunker"punishment.On ... 1965, after a fit, he was sent to the psychiatric section. Hestates that "strait jackets, padded cells, violence and drug sedationare the order of the day" and that the guards exercised their brutalityon the prisoners. He was treated as though he was insane and subjectedto a degrading physical search. He complained in writing to the prisondirector who refused to read his letter.He complains that the prison diet is poor, amounting to only 1.000calories a day. On this prisoners have to work eight hours a day. On... 1965, he started a hunger strike in protest against the poor food.On ... he was placed on report (Strafreport) for going on hunger strikeand for insulting the prison food. He states that there is no appealagainst this treatment. He gives the names of witnesses who support hisallegations but states that the other prisoners do not complain forfear of punishment.He alleges that the treatment he has to suffer in the prison is inhumanand degrading and violates Article 3 in conjunction with Articles 14,17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that he and other prisoners are forced to work 42hours a week for private industries but have no right to wages. Theprivate industries pay normal wages to the Bavarian State for the workdone by the prisoners but the latter only receive between 0.30 DM and0.80 DM a day. Over and above their normal task they can only earn upto 20 DM a month. The Applicant has unsuccessfully brought anindictment against the Management Committee (Vorstand) and the BavarianState, accusing them of slavery and exploitation of prisoners. Thi***ploitation arises in the sale of articles made by the prisoners. Theprisoners are also charged admission fees to see films which areprovided to the prison free of charge. He asks the Commission not todecide these complaints without investigating them and hearing thewitnesses named in his letter of ... 1965.He alleges violations of Article 4, in conjunction with Articles 14,17 and 18 of the Convention in this respect.The Applicant complains that there is no freedom of opinion orexpression in the prison. Letters in which he expressed his opinion ofthe prison and its staff were suppressed. For one expression in aletter he was punished by loss of correspondence with his family forthree months.He alleges that these restrictions violate Articles 8, 9 and 10 inconjunction with Articles 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention.The Applicant states that he was not permitted to write a letter "inpursuit of a law action against a newspaper". He therefore made ademonstration and went on hunger strike. For this he was punished butwas later permitted to write the letter. Other letters are suppressedor destroyed. The Applicant complained of this to the Minister ofJustice on ... and ... 1965.The Applicant makes a general complaint of the length of detentionpending trial in the Federal Republic, alleging violation of Articles5 and 6 of the Convention. He does not state that these complaintsrelate to his own case.In his letter of ... 1965, the Applicant states that the disciplinaryprocedure for putting prisoners on "report" is unjust. Not only are thereports made by the prison guards false and the prisoners given no timeto prepare a defence but the decision is taken regardless of theevidence. He alleges that Article 6, paragraph (3) (a) and (b), whichapply to such proceedings, are violated. On ... 1966, he broughtcharges for causing bodily harm (Körperverletzung im Amt) against fourpersons. He complained that he had been punished without investigation,in a manner dangerous to health. The Public Prosecutor's Office at theRegional Court of Regensburg rejected the charges on ... 1966.With regard to Article 26 of the Convention, the Applicant states thatin practice a prisoner has no right to appeal. The Bavarian Ministryof Justice has rejected all the complaints he has made.These have dealtwith all the allegations made in his complaint to the Commission.On ... 1966, he was able to raise his complaints again in an interviewwith members of the Bavarian Parliament but without success.The Applicant complains of interference with his communications withthe Commission. He has been prevented from obtaining further evidencefrom a newspaper, the "8 Uhr Blatt". In ... 1966 letters to otherpersons were not sent because he could not pay postage. His supply ofwriting paper is restricted in contravention of a decision of the Courtof Appeal of Munich. The fact that all letters are censored violatesArticles 25 and 33 of the Convention, in the Applicant's view.The Applicant has asked the Commission to send a delegation toinvestigate his allegations and was originally willing to contribute£ 100 for the cost. The Applicant stated in ... 1966 that a lawyer, Dr.B, had taken up his case. This lawyer has not communicated with theCommission.In all, the Applicant complains of violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6,8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 33 of the Convention.On 11th August, 1965, the Applicant stated that he would "cancel" hisApplication unless he was assured that it would be fairly investigated.On 7th July, 1966, he wrote "in view of your refusal to assist me inthese exceptional circumstances and the inordinate length of timeinvolved and money wasted in dealing with my Application, I herewithcancel my Application ...".On 24th August, 1966, the Applicant asked for the return of all hisdocuments, for the purpose of evidence in other court actions.On 10th November, 1966, the Applicant wrote to the Commission statingthat, on the advice of his solicitor, he wished not to abandon hisprevious request to withdraw his Application. He asked the Commissionto realise that the degrading and demoralising conditions of hisimprisonment caused him to write his letter withdrawing hisApplication. He apologised for its impolite terms.THE LAWWhereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed againstpress, radio or television enterprises and relate to alleged defamatoryreports made before or during his trial in the Regional Court ofWürzburg, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention thatthe 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 the rights set forth in the Conventionprovided that the Party in question has accepted this competence of theCommission; whereas it results clearly from these Articles that theCommission has no competence ratione personae to admit applicationsdirected against private individuals or enterprises;Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previousdecisions Nos. 172/56 (S. v. Sweden - Yearbook I, page 211) and 852/60(S. v. Federal Republic of Germany - ibid. IV, page 346); whereas, inany event, the right to reputation is not as such guaranteed by theConvention;Whereas an examination of the case as it has been submitted does notdisclose any grounds on which the alleged conduct of the press, radioor television enterprises concerned could exceptionally entail theresponsibility of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germanyunder the Convention; whereas it follows that this part of theApplication is incompatible within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints that he was prejudicedat this trial in the Regional Court of Würzburg as a result of press,radio or television reports, it is to be observed that, under Article26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with amatter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to thegenerally recognised rules of international law; and whereas theApplicant failed to appeal against his conviction; whereas, therefore,he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitteddoes not disclose the existence of any special circumstances whichmight have absolved the Applicant, according to the generallyrecognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domesticremedies at his disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to theexhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27,paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention has not been compliedwith by the Applicant;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that on ... 1964, theRegional Court of Flensburg refused to translate into English anindictment against him, he has failed to supply any details of theseproceedings or to show that he lodged an appeal in respect of them;whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies availableto him under German law and has not complied with the condition laiddown in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of theConvention;Whereas the same ground of inadmissibility also applies in regard tothe Applicant's complaints concerning his treatment in prison andrelating to his detention in a so-called 'steel cage', as he failed toseize the competent courts of these complaints;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning thestandard of food in the prison of Straubing and to the allegedobligation of prisoners to work for low wages, an examination of thecase as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of aviolation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention andin particular in Articles 3 and 4 (Art. 3, 4); whereas it follows thatthis part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within it hemeaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the absenceof a priest of the Church of England or of facilities for worshipaccording to the rites of the Church of England in the prison ofStraubing, it is to be observed that there is no evidence that aProtestant pastor or facilities for worship in the Protestant religionare not available to the Applicant; whereas, therefore, 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 Article 9 (Art. 9); whereas it follows that thispart of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning theallegedly unfair system of dealing with disciplinary offenses in theprison of Straubing and in so far as the Applicant alleges violationsof Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), in relationto such proceedings against him, it is to be observed that these twoprovisions guarantee certain procedural rights to 'everyone chargedwith a criminal offence'; whereas the Applicant was clearly not aperson "charged with a criminal offence"; whereas it follows that therights set out in Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) and (b) (Art. 6-3-a, 6-3-b), are not applicable to the proceedings of which the Applicantcomplains; whereas, therefore, this part of the Application isincompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of interference by theprison authorities with his correspondence, by censoring his lettersand restricting his correspondence to third persons, it is to beobserved that, although Article 8 of the Convention, in paragraph (1)(Art. 8-1), provides that everyone has the right to respect for hiscorrespondence, paragraph (2) of the same Article (Art. 8-2) permitsinterference by a public authority with the exercise of these rightswhere such interference is in accordance with the law and is necessaryin a democratic society, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder orcrime;Whereas, in cases in which the rights guaranteed in Article 8 (Art. 8)are at issue, the Commission has the right and indeed the ability toappreciate whether or not interference by a public authority fulfilsthe conditions laid down in paragraph (2) of the Article (Art. 8-2);whereas the Commission has frequently held that this Article leaves theContracting Parties a certain margin of appreciation in determining thelimits which may be placed on the right in question; whereas anexamination of the case as it has been submitted does not show that anyinterference with the Applicant's freedom of correspondence was in anyway an abuse of the Respondent Government's right to impose suchlimitations or was carried out in a manner contrary to the Convention;whereas it follows that no appearance of a violation of the rights andfreedoms guaranteed by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention has beendisclosed;Whereas, therefore, this part of the Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints of interference withhis correspondence with the Commission, as a result of the restrictionor censorship of his letters, the Commission has examined thisallegation in the light of Article 25 (Art. 25); whereas it is to beobserved that the Applicant has been able to write frequently and atlength to the Commission;Whereas the Commission does not find any reason to believe that theApplicant has been in any way hindered in the effective exercise of hisright of petition under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention;Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.