[align=left]
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2457/65 [1967] ECHR 21 (10 July 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant states that he is a German citizen of Lithuanian origin,born in 1925 and living at Bielefeld. His complaints are as follows:I. In a previous Application (No. 1709/62) the Applicant alleged thathe was wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution.On 8th July, 1964, the Commission rejected that Application on thegrounds that it was, in part, inadmissible ratione temporis and thatthe remainder was incompatible with the Convention within the meaningof Article 27, paragraph (2).In his present Application, the Applicant renews his allegation thathe is wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution. Hestates that the final decision in his case was given by the FederalConstitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on .. December, 1963,and submits that the Federal Compensation Act(Bundesentschädigungsgesetz) and its application in his case constitutecontinuing violations of Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and ofArticle 2 of the Protocol.II. In a letter of .. October, 1966, the Applicant also complains that,in the Federal Republic of Germany, he and other persons of Lithuanianstock are not given any opportunity to have their children educated inthe Lithuanian language.THE LAWWhereas the Commission, on 8th July, 1964, delivered a decision inwhich it declared Application No. 1709/62 lodged by the Applicant tobe inadmissible;Whereas, under Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of theConvention, the Commission may not deal with any application submittedunder Article 25 (Art. 25) if it is substantially the same as a matterwhich has already been examined by the Commission and contains norelevant new information; whereas, in his complaints mentioned in partI of the above statement of facts, the Applicant repeats the complaintsmade by him in Application No. 1709/62; and whereas he does not submitany relevant new information in regard to these complaints;Whereas this part of the present Application must accordingly berejected in pursuance of Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b);Whereas the Applicant also complains that, in the Federal Republic ofGermany, he and other persons of Lithuanian stock are not given anyopportunity to have their children educated in the Lithuanian language;whereas in this respect it is to be observed that the Convention, underthe terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights andfreedoms set forth in Section I; 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 the competence of theCommission ratione materiae;Whereas, in the present case, the Commission does not feel called uponto decide the question whether the right to education claimed by theApplicant is included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by theConvention as, in any event, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of theConvention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedieshave been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules ofinternational law; whereas in this respect the Commission hasfrequently stated that the remedy by means of a constitutional appeal(Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court(Bundesverfassungsgericht), for matters within the competence of thatCourt, is a domestic remedy which in principle falls within the scopeof Article 26 (Art. 26) (see Application No. 1086/61, Yearbook of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, Volume 5, pages 148 [154]);whereas, under Article 90 of the Act on the Federal ConstitutionalCourt (Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht), everyone has theright to lodge a constitutional appeal to the Federal ConstitutionalCourt alleging a violation by a public authority of one of the BasicLaw (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany; Whereas, inrespect of the Applicant's above complaint concerning the situation ofpersons of Lithuanian stock in the Federal Republic of Germany, theCommission has had regard to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Conventionwhich provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forthin the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any groundsuch as race, language, national origin or association with a nationalminority; whereas this provision corresponds to Article 3, paragraph(3) of the Basic Law which states that no one may be prejudiced orfavoured because of his race, his language or his homeland and origin;Whereas, however, the Applicant failed to lodge a constitutional appealbased on this Article; whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted theremedies available to him under German law; whereas, moreover, anexamination of the case as it has been submitted, including anexamination made ex officio, does not disclose the existence of anyspecial circumstances which might have absolved the Applicant,according to the generally recognised rules of international law, fromexhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal;Whereas it follows that, insofar as the right to education claimed bythe Applicant may be guaranteed by the Convention, he has not compliedwith the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid downin Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.[/align]