هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 12:55 PM
X. v. THE GERMANY - 2375/64 [1967] ECHR 15 (07 February 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a German national, born in 1922 and at presentdetained in prison at Duisburg.From his statements and from the documents submitted by the Applicantit appears that a warrant for arrest was issued against him on ..August, 1964 and he was detained on remand on .. August, 1964. Hestates that on .. September, 1964 he lodged an application with theRegional Court (Landgericht) at Duisburg to have the reasons for hisdetention examined (Haftprüfungsverfahren). It appears that his lawyerlater withdrew this application upon receiving an undertaking fromthe presiding judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Regional Courtthat the Applicant would be brought to trial within 3 weeks. On ..November, 1964, however, the Applicant lodged a second such applicationwith the Regional Court of Duisburg which was rejected on .. November,1964. An appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision to the Court of Appeal(Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf was dismissed on .. December, 1964.On .. January, 1965, the Applicant lodged a third application with theRegional Court of Duisburg to have the reasons for his detentionexamined but this was rejected on .. February, 1965. He states thathe lodged an appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision on .. February,1965.On .. May, 1965, the Applicant was convicted on charges of fraudby the Regional Court of Duisburg and sentenced to 4 years' penalservitude.The Applicant complains that he was wrongly detained on remand inthat he had never intended to abscond from the jurisdiction of theCourt and that this suspicion had been the reason for his detention.He further complains that on account of the fact that letters fromprison had to be approved by the prison authorities, his letters weredelayed and that, while in the State Hospital at Bedburg-Hau forobservation, three letters to his lawyers were opened, read and heldback for 8 days before they were forwarded.The Applicant also complains that his sentence was too severe.He alleges a violation of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning hisconviction and sentence, it is to be observed that, under Article 26(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matterafter all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to thegenerally recognised rules of international law; and whereas theApplicant failed to show that he appealed from the Regional Court'sdecision of .. May, 1965 to the competent court; whereas, therefore,he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the lengthof his detention on remand, it appears that he failed to lodge aconstitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the FederalConstitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); whereas, therefore,in this respect also he has not exhausted the remedies available tohim under German law;Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose theexistence of any special circumstances which might have absolved theApplicant according to the generally recognised rules of internationallaw, from exhausting in either case the domestic remedies at hisdisposal;Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domesticremedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)(Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by theApplicant;Whereas, in any event, in regard to the above complaint concerning thelength of the Applicant's detention on remand, an examination of thecase as it has been submitted, including an examination made exofficio, does not, in the particular circumstances of the present case,disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms setforth in the Convention and in particular in Article 5, paragraph (3)(Art. 5-3);Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is also manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas the Applicant complains that the prison authorities at Duisburgand the hospital authorities at Bedburg-Hau opened, read, and delayedthe transmission of several letters to his lawyers, the delay in onecase amounting to eight days; whereas in this respect the Commissionhas had regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guaranteesto everyone the right to respect for his correspondence and authorisesinterference with the exercise of this right only under certainconditions set out in paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 8-2); whereasthe question arises whether the authorities concerned, by the actsdescribed, interfered with his freedom of correspondence; whereas itis to be observed that an ordinary control of correspondence isconsidered to be an inherent feature of imprisonment; whereas, havingregard to the very short delay in the transmission of the lettersconcerned, the Commission finds that the conduct of the prison orhospital authorities does not amount to an interference with theApplicant's freedom of correspondence within the meaning of Article 8(Art. 8) of the Convention; whereas it follows that this complaint ismanifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), 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 German national, born in 1922 and at presentdetained in prison at Duisburg.From his statements and from the documents submitted by the Applicantit appears that a warrant for arrest was issued against him on ..August, 1964 and he was detained on remand on .. August, 1964. Hestates that on .. September, 1964 he lodged an application with theRegional Court (Landgericht) at Duisburg to have the reasons for hisdetention examined (Haftprüfungsverfahren). It appears that his lawyerlater withdrew this application upon receiving an undertaking fromthe presiding judge of the Criminal Chamber of the Regional Courtthat the Applicant would be brought to trial within 3 weeks. On ..November, 1964, however, the Applicant lodged a second such applicationwith the Regional Court of Duisburg which was rejected on .. November,1964. An appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision to the Court of Appeal(Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf was dismissed on .. December, 1964.On .. January, 1965, the Applicant lodged a third application with theRegional Court of Duisburg to have the reasons for his detentionexamined but this was rejected on .. February, 1965. He states thathe lodged an appeal (Beschwerde) from this decision on .. February,1965.On .. May, 1965, the Applicant was convicted on charges of fraudby the Regional Court of Duisburg and sentenced to 4 years' penalservitude.The Applicant complains that he was wrongly detained on remand inthat he had never intended to abscond from the jurisdiction of theCourt and that this suspicion had been the reason for his detention.He further complains that on account of the fact that letters fromprison had to be approved by the prison authorities, his letters weredelayed and that, while in the State Hospital at Bedburg-Hau forobservation, three letters to his lawyers were opened, read and heldback for 8 days before they were forwarded.The Applicant also complains that his sentence was too severe.He alleges a violation of Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning hisconviction and sentence, it is to be observed that, under Article 26(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matterafter all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to thegenerally recognised rules of international law; and whereas theApplicant failed to show that he appealed from the Regional Court'sdecision of .. May, 1965 to the competent court; whereas, therefore,he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under German law;Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaints concerning the lengthof his detention on remand, it appears that he failed to lodge aconstitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the FederalConstitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht); whereas, therefore,in this respect also he has not exhausted the remedies available tohim under German law;Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose theexistence of any special circumstances which might have absolved theApplicant according to the generally recognised rules of internationallaw, from exhausting in either case the domestic remedies at hisdisposal;Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domesticremedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)(Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by theApplicant;Whereas, in any event, in regard to the above complaint concerning thelength of the Applicant's detention on remand, an examination of thecase as it has been submitted, including an examination made exofficio, does not, in the particular circumstances of the present case,disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms setforth in the Convention and in particular in Article 5, paragraph (3)(Art. 5-3);Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is also manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas the Applicant complains that the prison authorities at Duisburgand the hospital authorities at Bedburg-Hau opened, read, and delayedthe transmission of several letters to his lawyers, the delay in onecase amounting to eight days; whereas in this respect the Commissionhas had regard to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guaranteesto everyone the right to respect for his correspondence and authorisesinterference with the exercise of this right only under certainconditions set out in paragraph (2) of this Article (Art. 8-2); whereasthe question arises whether the authorities concerned, by the actsdescribed, interfered with his freedom of correspondence; whereas itis to be observed that an ordinary control of correspondence isconsidered to be an inherent feature of imprisonment; whereas, havingregard to the very short delay in the transmission of the lettersconcerned, the Commission finds that the conduct of the prison orhospital authorities does not amount to an interference with theApplicant's freedom of correspondence within the meaning of Article 8(Art. 8) of the Convention; whereas it follows that this complaint ismanifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.