[align=left]Whereas the submissions of the Parties may be summarised as follows:

The Federal Government referred to a statement which it had received
from the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Württemberg in regard to the
Applicant's complaint. The Ministry had stated that this complaint
should be so interpreted as to concern primarily the fact that the
Applicant had not been allowed to join other prisoners in taking walks
in the prison courtyard as provided for in the Service and Prison
Files. In fact, the Applicant had been prohibited from mixing with his
fellow-prisoners in these walks in the prison courtyard and he had to
do his open-air exercise in the so-called "Normalhof" ("ordinary
yard"). The Government quoted the following statement by the Ministry
of Justice of Baden-Württemberg:

"While the prisoners admitted to the more informal walks in the prison
courtyard are allowed to talk to each other, those spending their
open-air exercise time in the so-called "Normalhof" are not allowed any
conversation with their fellow-prisoners during that time."

The Government further submitted that the Applicant's complaint was
inadmissible, since the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In
reply to an appeal lodged by the Applicant in August, 1964, the Federal
Constitutional Court had informed him, on .. September, 1964, that,
before lodging a constitutional appeal, he should exhaust all other
remedies and that, in particular, he should lodge an application for
a judicial decision according to Article 23 of the Introductory Act to
the Judicature Act. Nevertheless, the Applicant had again written to
the Federal Constitutional Court which, on .. October, 1964, had
formally rejected his constitutional appeal as being inadmissible. The
Applicant had not even after this decision lodged an application for
a judicial decision according to Article 23 of the Introductory Act to
the Judicature Act, and consequently he had not exhausted the legal
remedies at his disposal.

The Applicant replied that his complaint concerned the illegal silence
division in the Bruchsal prison. While the Penal Code and the Service
and Prison Rules contained provisions regarding the use of solitary
confinement, there were no corresponding provisions regarding the
system of silence division and this system was therefore illegal.

In regard to the legal remedies, the Applicant confirmed that, in reply
to his complaint of August, 1964, the Federal Constitutional Court had
informed him that he should first lodge an application with the
competent Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, he had immediately submitted
a new complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court and had been
informed that this complaint had been registered as a constitutional
appeal. The Applicant maintained, however, that the decision of ..
October, 1964 referred to by the Government had not concerned the
present complaint but that the reference number of the case had been
confused with the number of another appeal.

The Government contested that the numbers of two appeals had been
confused and undertook to submit the relevant file of the Federal
Constitutional Court if the Commission should require further
information on this point.

THE LAW

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint as to his detention in
a "silence division" (paragraph 1 of the statement of facts), it is to
be observed that, 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;

Whereas the Government has submitted that the Applicant had not lodged
an application for a judicial decision (Antrag auf gerichtliche
Entscheidung) according to Article 23 of the Introductory Act to the
Judicature Act (Einführungsgesetz zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz);
whereas the Applicant has not contested this statement by the
Government; whereas, therefore, it must be assumed that the Applicant
did not use this particular remedy;

Whereas it also appears that the Federal Constitutional Court had
informed the Applicant, by letter of .. September, 1964, that he should
make use of this remedy before lodging a constitutional appeal;

Whereas, consequently, the Applicant has not exhausted the domestic
remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,
in particular, as the failure to lodge an application for a judicial
decision also excluded him from having his allegations examined by the
Federal Constitutional Court;

Whereas, in these circumstances, it is superfluous to examine the
contents of the Federal Constitutional Court's decision of .. October,
1964 in regard to which the Parties have made contradictory statements;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint as to interference with
his correspondence with a certain A.W (paragraph 2 (a) of the statement
of facts), it appears that the Applicant lodged a complaint which was
treated as an application for a judicial decision according to Article
23 of the Introductory Act to the Judicature Act; whereas the competent
Court of Appeal decided that this application was inadmissible since
some of the decisions complained of had been given before 1st April,
1960, the day on which Article 23 of the said Act had entered into
force and, further, in regard to subsequent decisions, the Applicant
had not exhausted the remedies which were available to him under the
Execution Ordinance (Strafvollzugsordnung);

Whereas Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the
Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have
been exhausted, and within a period of six months from the date of the
final domestic decision;

Whereas, as regards the decisions given before 1st April, 1960 in
respect of the Applicant's correspondence with A.W, the Applicant
failed to observe the six months' time-limit, since he did not submit
his case to the Commission until 29th July, 1964, that is more than six
months after the dates of the decisions complained of;

Whereas, as regards the decisions given after 1st April, 1960 in
respect of that correspondence, the Applicant failed to exhaust the
domestic remedies at his disposal; whereas, in particular, he did not
take action according to the Execution Ordinance; whereas his failure
to take such action also prevented him from having his complaint
examined by the Court of Appeal;

Whereas it follows that in regard to the Applicant's complaint as to
the interference with his correspondence with A.W, he did not comply
with the conditions laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention;

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant complains of the ill-treatment of
an Algerian prisoner (paragraph 3 (c) of the statement of facts), it
is to be observed that, according to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the
Convention, the Commission may only receive petitions from a person,
organisation or group of individuals "claiming to be the victim of a
violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set
forth in this Convention";

Whereas, in regard to the present complaint, the Applicant does not
allege that he is, directly or indirectly, the victim of the
ill-treatment concerned;

Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is incompatible
with Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention and is to be rejected
according to Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, in so far as the Applicant's complaints are directed against
his lawyer (paragraph 3 (e) of the statement of facts), it appears from
Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention that the Commission can admit
an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be
the victim of a violation of the Convention "by one of the High
Contracting Parties"; whereas, on the other hand, the Commission has
no competence ratione personae to admit applications directed against
private individuals;

Whereas it follows that this part of the Application which is directed
against the Applicant's lawyer is incompatible with the Convention
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention (see Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Volume 6, page 356);

Whereas, in regard to the remainder of the Application, including the
Applicant's complaints as to interference with his correspondence with
persons other than A.W, inadequate medical treatment, ill-treatment of
the Applicant and antisemit statements by a prison officer (paragraphs
2 (b), 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the statement of facts), an
examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and, particularly in Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8);

Whereas it follows that these parts of the Application are 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]