[align=left]

The applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 6, paragraphs (1) and
(3) (a), (c) and (d), 7, paragraph (1), 8. paragraph (2), 9, paragraph
(2), 11, paragraph (2), 13 and 14 of the Convention. He also invokes
Articles 25, 26, 27, paragraph (1) (b), 28, paragraph (b), 31,
paragraphs (1) and (3), 44, 47, 49 and 50 of the Convention.

B. Complaints against the Federal Republic of Germany

The complaints made by the applicant against the Federal Republic of
Germany relate to certain facts already presented in Application No.
3011/67 which were summarised as follows in the Commission's decision
of 20th December, 1967:

"From his statements and from documents submitted by him in support of
his present application against the Federal Republic of Germany it
appears that, since September, 1954, his mother had rented a flat at
Magstadt which he also inhabited and where he kept his belongings.
Owing to the applicant's frequent absence, his mother let part of the
flat to a subtenant. On .. October, 1964, upon the initiative taken by
the authorities at Magstadt, the applicant's mother was first committed
to an institution for aged people and later to a mental institution.
Subsequently, the lessor gave notice to the applicant to vacate the
flat in view of the fact that his mother was unlikely to return and he
himself was faced with a long-term imprisonment imposed upon him in
Austria.

The applicant, whose furniture, household and other goods were still
in this flat, objected to the notice to both the authorities at
Magstadt and the lessor. It appears that he also addressed himself
repeatedly to the District Court (Amtsgericht) at Böblingen asking for
protection. By letters from the District Court, dated .. February, 1965
and .. April, 1965, and from the authorities at Magstadt, dated ..
January, 1965, he was informed that, in the circumstances, no action
could be taken on his behalf. He apparently did not listen, however,
to the advice given to him by the authorities at Magstadt and the
District Court at Böblingen to the effect that he should apply for a
guardian (Pfleger) who would attend to his affairs. In any event, the
lessor took possession of the flat on .. July, 1965, after having
evicted the subtenants.

It appears that, in the meanwhile, the applicant's brother had come
over from America to take possession of the applicant's belongings. He
sold them and obtained a purchase price of DM 1065.- which he took with
him to America.

The applicant maintained that the goods stored away in the flat had a
much higher value than the price realised by his brother. He concluded
that the subtenant had taken them in his possession when his mother was
committed to the mental institution. He held the authorities at
Magstadt and the lessor responsible for the damage done to him owing
to their failure to protect his mother from the subtenants and to the
fact that they had allowed them (the subtenants) to remain in the flat
after his mother had left it.

Thus he intended to bring an action for damages in the courts and, for
this 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 ..
August, 1966, on the ground that the proceedings proposed did not offer
any reasonable prospects of success. The applicant appealed
(Beschwerde) against this decision to the Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht) at Stuttgart which dismissed the appeal on ..
January, 1967. The Court held that insofar as the claim was directed
against the lessor, there was no cause of action, because the lessor
owed no duty to the lessee in respect of the lessee's belongings. The
Court continued that there was also no cause of action against the
authorities of Magstadt; even if it were assumed that a duty existed
owing to the fact that this defendant caused the mother to be committed
to an institution for aged people, there was no breach of this duty
(Amtspflichtverletzung) because she herself had taken steps to
safeguard her own and the applicant's belongings.

The applicant made a further appeal (weitere Beschwerde) against this
decision to the Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) which was declared
inadmissible on .. September, 1967, on the ground that a further appeal
did not lie in these cases."

These complaints were declared inadmissible by the Commission's
decision of 20th December, 1967, both as regards the alleged
deprivation of property and the subsequent court proceedings.

The applicant now alleges that during these Court proceedings he was
insulted and defamed in a letter submitted by the lessor to the
Regional Court on .. June, 1966. In this letter it was stated that the
applicant served a long term of imprisonment, that the applicant's
mother had let part of the flat to a subtenant without the lessor's
permission and that one could not expect from the lessor to let the
flat to the applicant and his mother any longer because they would not
be able to pay the rent.

The applicant requested legal aid in order to institute private
criminal prosecution ("Privatklage") against the lessor to the District
Court of Stuttgart. The District Court refused the request by decision
of .. September, 1967, on the grounds that the intended private
criminal prosecution had no reasonable chance of success. This decision
was confirmed on appeal by the Regional Court on .. September, 1967.

It appears that the applicant also lodged two constitutional appeals
which were rejected as being inadmissible by decisions of the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of .. January and ..
February, 1968. The applicant gives no clear details in this respect.

The applicant complains that he did not really want to apply for
private criminal prosecution but wanted to bring a civil action.

Although speaking of a "Privatklage" he apparently wished to bring a
civil action for damages and for a statement that he was still tenant
of the flat. He complains that no decision was given in this respect.

Furthermore the applicant complains of the fact that the Court had put
the expenses at his charge. He alleges - as he did in his previous
application (No. 3011/67) - that the authorities at Magstadt and the
lessor are responsible for the damage done to him and now complains
that he has even to pay the court's expenses resulting from this case.

The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6, paragraphs (1) and (3),
(c) and (d), 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of the First
Protocol. He also invokes Articles 25, 26, 31, paragraph (1), 44, 47,
49 and 50 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention
provides that "the Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition
submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25), which it considers ... an abuse
of the right of petition";

Whereas in this respect it is first to be observed that the applicant
has already seized the Commission twice with applications generally
concerning the same facts as his present complaints; whereas both those
previous applications were found to be inadmissible; whereas the
applicant nevertheless repeats in part his previous complaints although
adding certain new elements; whereas therefore the Commission, in
examining the present application, has taken into account that this
application constitutes to a certain extent a repetition of the
previous ones, even if it cannot strictly be said to be "substantially
the same" within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (1) (b)
(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention;

Whereas in his submission on one of those facts already raised in his
first application (No. 2370/53), the applicant has made deliberately
false statements and tried to mislead the Commission with regard to the
incident on the train between Vienna and Wiener-Neustadt, in that he
claimed in his first application that he jumped off the train to commit
suicide and - obviously no longer being aware of that statement - now
claims that he fell off the train as a result of a sudden fainting and
contributory negligence on the part of the escorting officer;

Whereas the Commission has already held in the past in similar cases
that such conduct of an applicant constitutes an abuse of the right of
petition; whereas reference is made to the decisions on the
admissibility of Applications Nos. 2169/64, 2204/64, 2326/64;
Collection of Decisions, Vol. 14, p. 76, and Nos. 2364/64, 2584/65,
2662/65 and 2748/66, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, p. 103; whereas
also in the present case the Commission finds in view of all
circumstances that the applicant's new application amounts to an abuse
of the right to petition within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph
(2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
[/align]