[align=left]By decision of .. November, 1964, 3 judges of the Federal
Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as being clearly ill-founded.
The Court held, inter alia, that there was no denial of equal treatment
nor of a fair trial, in that the Federal Labour Court had acted on the
presumption that the facts which were to be proved by the Applicant
were true. The Court does not mention the problem whether the right to
a fair trial could be violated owing to the fact that a person is
dismissed from his employment because he instituted an action in the
courts.

The Applicant now complains of a violation of Articles 6 and 17 of the
Convention. He alleges that, in the determination of his civil rights
and obligations, he was denied a fair hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. He maintains that the right to
a fair hearing is illusory when his access to the courts is barred by
economic pressure.

He further alleges that the Federal Labour Court denied him a fair
hearing concerning the question whether the notice contravened public
policy in that the Court gave a decision regarding this issue although
it had no competence to do so.

He expressly does not wish to complain about his dismissal from
employment itself.

THE LAW

Whereas the Applicant complains that he was denied a fair hearing
within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the
Convention on the question whether or not his dismissal from employment
contravened public policy; whereas in this connection he submits that
the Federal Labour Court, on .. May, 1964, took a decision on the
question of a violation of public policy although it was not competent
to do so;

Whereas it is true that the Federal Labour Court, in its above
decision, decided on a question of law by relying on the findings of
fact of the Labour Court of Appeal; whereas the Federal Constitutional
Court found that this procedure before the Federal Labour Court did not
violate the Applicant's constitutional rights under the German Basic
Law (Grundgesetz) and in particular Article 101, paragraph (1) in fine,
and 103, paragraph (1); whereas Article 101 states in paragraph (1) in
fine: "... No-one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful
judge"; and whereas Article 103, paragraph (1) provides that "in the
courts everyone is entitled to a hearing in accordance with the law";
whereas the Commission finds that this provision of the German Basic
Law corresponds as far as the issue in this case is concerned to the
provision of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission further finds that the above decision of the
Federal Constitutional Court does not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and
especially in Article 6 (Art. 6); whereas, in respect of the judicial
decision complained of, the Commission has frequently stated that in
accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task
is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties
in the Convention;

Whereas, 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 the Commission considers that such errors might
have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms
limitatively listed in the Convention; whereas, in this respect, the
Commission refers to its Decisions Nos. 458/59 (X v. Belgium - Yearbook
III, page 233) and 1140/61 (X v. Austria - Collection of Decisions,
Volume 8, page 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a violation
in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows that this part of
the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article
27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant also complains that he was prejudiced in the
exercise of his right to institute proceedings to re-establish his
reputation; whereas in this respect he submits that he was denied a
fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
law within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the
Convention;

Whereas he points out, in particular, that the decision of the Federal
Labour Court had declared lawful his dismissal for which the express
motive had been proceedings instituted by him before the Regional Court
of Frankfurt for the re-establishment of his reputation; whereas,
further, this decision was approved by the Federal Constitutional
Court; whereas he submits that the effect of these two decisions was
to preclude him from having recourse to the courts for the purpose of
establishing his reputation;

Whereas it is, however, clear that the Applicant did, in fact,
institute proceedings in order to re-establish his reputation; whereas,
consequently, an examination of the case as it has been submitted,
including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and in particular in Articles 6 and 17 (Art. 6, 17); whereas
it follows that this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.[/align]