[align=left]THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The Applicant was born in 1924 in Danzig and is a lawyer now living in
West Berlin. He has lodged the present Application also on behalf of
his minor son, Ulrich X., born in Berlin in 1950. The Applicant affirms
that he is legally entitled to represent his son, although the German
courts have awarded custody to the boy's mother, his divorced wife.

The Applicant has previously lodged an Application (No. 1959/63) which
was declared inadmissible by the Commission on 22nd April, 1965. The
Applicant himself refers to the facts and arguments of that Application
which were summarised in the decision as follows:

"During the war the Applicant was conscripted and served in the German
army. At the end of hostilities he received an identity card from the
allied authorities in Leipzig giving his nationality as 'a citizen of
the Free State of Danzig - until determination (bis zur Klärung)'. At
present he is in possession of a passport issued by the allied
authorities in Berlin giving his nationality as 'undecided (ungeklärt)
- Free State of Danzig'.

The Applicant was married in 1949 to a woman who was a lawyer and a
German citizen, but in 1959 the marriage was dissolved. In 1960 custody
of the Applicant's son was transferred to his maternal grandparents and
civil suits relating to custody and alimony are apparently pending
before the courts in Berlin . On .. July, 1961, the Applicant was
ordered to pay alimony of 100 DM monthly to his son by a decision of
the District Court of Tiergarten. The Applicant has lodged an appeal
against this order.

During the proceedings the Applicant requested the application of the
laws of Danzig, i.e. Article 1653 of the Civil Code (BGB) in its Danzig
version. He submitted that, according to the Hague Convention of 12th
June, 1902, (acceded to by Germany in 1904, by Poland and Danzig in
1929) and to German law (Article 19 of the Introductory Act to the
Civil Code), questions of legal representation of minors (gesetzliche
Vertretung) and custody (Sorgerecht) shall be determined by the laws
of the country of which the father is a national. Consequently, these
rights belong to the Applicant:

During these proceedings, the right of legal representation of the
child was given to his mother, the case being termed 'Ulrich X.,
represented by his mother, Dr. H. X. v. Dr. G. X.'. The Applicant
protested and demanded that the Danzig rules should be followed and he
alleged that the non-observance of these rules implied a
non-recognition of his own and his son's status as citizens of the Free
State of Danzig.
At a hearing of the alimony proceedings on .. October, 1961 before the
Regional Court of Berlin, the Applicant requested that the case should
be adjourned pending the outcome of certain revision proceedings
(Restitutions-Verfahren) pending before the Court of Appeal of Berlin,
presumably concerning his divorce. This request was rejected on the
same day and the Applicant announced the he would lodge an appeal
(sofortige Beschwerde). As he needed time for preparing his appeal, he
asked that a new session be fixed. His ex-wife opposed the appeal and,
at the suggestion of the presiding judge, she requested a judgment in
default arising from his failure to plead on the issue
(Versäumnisurteil). This was granted to her.

On .. November, 1961, the Applicant lodged a complaint (Einspruch),
as well as a request for a stay of execution, both of which were
rejected by the same court on .. December, 1961, and on appeal
(sofortige Beschwerde) by the Court of Appeal of Berlin on .. February,
1962.

On .. November, 1961, the Applicant lodged an application for a
rectification of the facts as contained in the decision of .. October,
1961. During a hearing on .. March, 1961, the Applicant requested that
two judges of the Court should withdraw from the case, but his request
was rejected on .. March, 1962, by the Regional Court of Berlin. His
appeals (sofortige Beschwerde) were likewise rejected by the Court of
Appeal (Kammergericht) of Berlin and by the Federal Court
(Bundesgerichtshof) on .. September, 1962, and .. January, 1963,
respectively. During his appeals, he requested without success that the
hearing of the case should be adjourned in accordance with Article 3
(2) of the Act of the Allied High Commission for Berlin of 17th March,
1950, and that certain questions concerning the application of Article
9 of the Potsdam Agreement of 1945 should be put to the British
Military Commander in Berlin. A constitutional complaint was rejected
by the Federal Constitutional Court on .. July, 1963. All these
instances refused to rule on the question as to who had the right to
represent the child legally on the ground that this issue was
irrelevant in proceedings concerning the alleged lack of impartiality
on the part of two judges. The Constitutional Court stated, however,
in its introduction to the decision, that the Applicant's son was
legally represented by the Applicant.[/align]