[align=left]
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3011/67 [1967] ECHR 32 (20 December 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a German citizen, born in 1914 at Sekic, Yugoslavia,and is at present detained in prison at Stein/Danube (Austria).He has lodged a previous Application (No 2370/64) with the Commission,directed against Austria and relating to the court proceedingsconcerning his conviction and sentence and to his detention in Austria.On 11 February 1967, the Commission declared inadmissible thisApplication.From his statements and from documents submitted by him in support ofhis present Application against the Federal Republic of Germany, itappears that, since September 1954, his mother had rented a flat atMagstadt which he also inhabited and where he kept his belongings.Owing to the Applicant's frequent absence, his mother let part of theflat to a sub-tenant. On .. October 1964, upon the initiative taken bythe authorities at Magstadt, the Applicant's mother was first committedto an institution for aged people and later to a mental institution.Subsequently, the lessor gave notice to the Applicant to vacate theflat in view of the fact that his mother was unlikely to return and hehimself was faced with a long-term imprisonment imposed upon him inAustria.The Applicant, whose furniture, household and other goods were stillin this flat, objected to the notice to both the authorities atMagstadt and the lessor. It appears that he also addressed himselfrepeatedly to the District Court (Amtsgericht) at Böblingen asking forprotection. By letters from the District Court, dated .. February 1965and .. April 1965, he was informed that, in the circumstances, noaction could be taken on his behalf. He apparently did not listen,however, to the advice given to him by the authorities at Magstadt andthe District Court at Böblingen to the effect that he should apply fora guardian (Pfleger) who would attend to his affairs. In any event, thelessor took possession of the flat on .. July 1965, after havingevicted the sub-tenants.It appears that, in the meanwhile, the Applicant's brother had comeover from America to take possession of the Applicant's belongings. Hesold them and obtained a purchase price of DM 1,065, which he took withhim to America.The Applicant maintained that the goods stored away in the flat had amuch higher value than the price realised by his brother. He concludedthat the sub-tenant had taken them in his possession when his motherwas committed to the mental institution. He held the authorities atMagstadt and the lessor responsible for the damage done to him owingto their failure to protect his mother from the sub-tenants and to thefact that they had allowed them (the sub-tenants) to remain in the flatafter his mother had left it.Thus he intended to bring an action for damages in the courts and, forthis purpose, lodged an application for free legal aid(Armenrechtsgesuch) with the Regional Court (Landgericht) at Stuttgart.This Court refused the application by decision (Beschluss) of .. August1966, on the ground that the proceedings proposed did not offer anyreasonable prospects of success. The Applicant appealed (Beschwerde)against this decision to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) atStuttgart which dismissed the appeal on .. January 1967. The Court heldthat insofar as the claim was directed against the lessor, there wasno duty to the lessee in respect of the lessee's belongings. The Courtcontinued that there was also no cause of action against theauthorities of Magstadt; even if it were assumed that a duty existedowing the fact that this defendant caused the mother to be committedto an institution for aged people, there was no breach of this duty(Amtspflichverletzung), because she herself had taken steps tosafeguard her own and the Applicant's belongings.The Applicant made a further appeal (weitere Beschwerde) against thisdecision to the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) which was declaredinadmissible on .. September 1967, on the ground that a further appealdid not lie in these cases.[/align]