[align=left]
Whereas the Commission refers in this respect to its constant
jurisprudence (see for instance decision of 19 July 1966, 2306/64,
Collection 21, page 23 at page 3); whereas it follows that the
application must be rejected as incompatible with the Convention in so
far as the Applicant complains of the revocation as such;

Whereas the Applicant complains, more particularly, that the
proceedings under which the Regional Court of Lüneburg revoked the
suspension on .. June 1964, were not brought against him within a
reasonable time;

Whereas the Commission observes in this respect that the Applicant in
these proceedings did not have the status of a person charged with a
criminal offence but that of a person convicted by a sentence which had
become final although its execution had been suspended; whereas a
court, when revoking the suspension of a sentence is not determining
a civil right or obligation within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6)
of the Convention, nor a criminal charge brought against the person in
question;

Whereas the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6) therefore do not apply to
such proceedings; whereas the Commission refers in this respect to its
decisions in Applications Nos 864/60 - X v. Austria - Collection of
Decisions 9, page 17 and 1336/62 - S v. Austria; whereas it follows
that this part of the application must also be rejected as incompatible
with the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant further complains that the said decision revoking
the suspension was pronounced after the expiry of the 3 years period
of probation and therefore was not in conformity with the relevant
provisions of the German code of criminal procedure; whereas in this
respect the respondent Government replies that under German law the
decisive date is not the date of the revocation, but the date on which
the conditions of suspension were violated, and that the facts on which
the order of revocation was based in the present case occurred before
the expiry of the 3 years period; whereas 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);
whereas, it is true, the Applicant also complains that the express
ground of the said decision was his presence at a certain youth
festival which was considered to be a breach of the condition imposed
by the original judgement; whereas he submits that the said decision
accordingly violated his freedom of expression and constituted as such
a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention; whereas, in this
respect, the Commission observed that the judgement of the Regional
Court of Lüneburg, as successively upheld by the Court of Appeal of
Celle and the Federal Constitutional Court, was exclusively concerned
with the interpretation and execution of its earlier judgement of ..
September 1959; whereas in performing this task the Court merely had
to decide whether or not the conditions imposed by that earlier
decision had been observed by the Applicant; whereas, therefore, the
court in finding that these conditions had not been observed and on
that ground revoking the suspension did not apply any new and separate
penal sanction but only ordered the execution of its earlier sentence;
whereas it follows that this part of the application must therefore be
rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas the Applicant further complains that his freedom to receive and
impart information has been infringed by the act of the Minister of
Justice of Lower Saxony in further suspending his sentence under the
same condition, namely that he should not attend or take part in
communist directed functions; whereas under Article 25, paragraph (1)
(Art. 25-1), of the Convention the Commission may only receive an
individual Application where the Applicant claims that he is a victim
of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set
forth in the Convention; whereas it is clear from the letter of the
District Court in Hannover dated .. December 1965, that the condition
imposed by the Minister and complained of by the Applicant had been
cancelled;

Whereas therefore the Applicant is no longer a victim in this respect
and the complaint is thus incompatible with the Convention and, in
particular, with the provisions of Article 25 (Art. 25) governing the
conditions under which the Commission may receive an Application from
an individual;

Whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its decisions in
Applications Nos 968/61 - X v. Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook
V 196 - 98, and 2257/64 - X v. Federal Republic of Germany, Collection
of Decisions 21, page 77; whereas it follows that this part of the
Application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27,paragraph
(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.



[/align]