[align=left]Whereas, insofar as the Applicant complains that the courts refused to
apply Polish law or that they misinterpreted certain provisions of
national law, 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 especially in the Articles invoked by the Applicant;

Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions 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
the 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, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v.
Austria - Collection of decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there
is no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of;
whereas it follows that also this part of the Application in manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, the Applicant further complains that he was not given a fair
hearing in the proceedings regarding the custody of his child, that he
is denied the possibility to educate his son in the Polish language and
culture and complains of the decisions determining his right to be
visited by his son;

Whereas, insofar as the Applicant complains that he was not given a
fair hearing in the proceedings regarding the custody of his child; it
is to be observed that the Applicant had; both before the lower courts
and before the Court of Appeal; a full opportunity to make his
submissions on all points at issue and, in particular, on the expert
opinions which had been brought to the knowledge of his lawyer before
the regional Court's decision;

Whereas, insofar as the Applicant complains that he has been prevented
from educating his son in the Polish language and culture, it is to be
observed that the right of education is an integral part of the custody
which has been entrusted to the mother and the Applicant therefore no
longer has a right to determine the manner in which that education is
carried out;

Whereas, insofar as he complains of the decisions determining his right
to be visited by his son, it is to be observed that the Applicant has,
in fact, been granted the right of visit within certain limits fixed
by the competent courts; in this respect, too, it is to be observed
that the national courts enjoy a certain margin of appreciation which
they have in no way exceeded in the present case;

Whereas, in regard to the above complaints 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 5,
6, 8 and 9 (Art. 5, 6, 8, 9); 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;

Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that the German courts
in their decisions refused to recognise him and his son as nationals
of Danzig and Poland, it is to be observed that the Convention, under
the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1); guarantees only the rights and
freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under
Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of
one of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the
subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental
organisation or group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the
Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to the recognition of a
particular nationality is as such included among the rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this respect the
Commission refers to its previous decisions, Nos. 288/57 (X. v. the
Federal Republic of Germany - Yearbook I, p. 209) and 1262/61 (C v.
Austria); whereas it follows that this part of the Application is
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.[/align]