[align=left]IV. The applicant further complains about the criminal proceedings conducted
against him in Munich both because of his failure to pay alimony for Gabriel
E. and because of defamation concerning Judge A.

In this respect it appears that on .. November, 1962, the Youth Welfare Office
of the City of Munich (Stadtjugendamt) in its capacity as guardian of Gabriel
E. laid with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Bonn charges against the
applicant of having failed to support the child (Unterhaltspflichtverletzung)
within the meaning of Article 170 b of the Penal Code. These charges were
referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich, apparently on the ground
that the charges also covered the period when the applicant was still living
in and near Munich. The applicant, however, considers this decision as a
violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provide
that criminal proceedings may also be conducted in the district where the
applicant actually has his residence or where he had been arrested. He also
considers that no criminal proceedings could have been instituted before the
civil paternity suit in Bonn had been finally decided.

At the District Court in Munich the case was first dealt with by Judge Dr. G.
The applicant questions the impartiality of this judge and alleges that the
judge's wife has been his opponent in the proceedings concerning the custody
of his niece and nephew but he has failed to explain this allegation. In
particular, he complains of the decision of .. November, 1964, by Judge Dr. G.
to obtain an expert opinion from Professor Dr. I. It appears that subsequently
the case was dealt with by another judge, Mrs. J., who on .. May, 1967,
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 months' imprisonment for the
failure to pay maintenance for the child. The applicant was given credit for
a period of detention on remand from .. October to .. November, 1965, and the
remainder of the sentence was suspended on probation. The applicant has failed
to provide any details with regard to his arrest and detention on remand but
complains that, as a consequence, he lost both his employment and his
apartment and was even refused unemployment benefits for 4 weeks since he
refused to accept a job as dish-washer.

By the District Court judgement of .. May, 1967, the applicant was also
convicted of having made defamatory statements (üble Nachrede) about District
Court Judge A. of Munich who had dealt with the proceedings concerning the
custody of his niece and nephew. In a letter to a superior he had called Judge
A. a "liar" and accused him of having intimate relations with the divorced
wife of Abad X. and of having conspired with her with a view to having the
children brought to the Soviet Union.

The applicant lodged with the Regional Court of Munich I an appeal (Berufung)
from the conviction and sentence of .. May, 1967. The date for the appeal
hearing was fixed for .. February, 1968, but the applicant has given no
information on the outcome of the appeal proceedings.

V. As a result of the applicant's refusal to pay alimony for the illegitimate
child, the competent administrative authority of the City of Bonn,
(Oberstadtdirektor - Ordnungsamt) refused several times since .. April, 1961,
to prolong the applicant's international travel document or to issue a new
one, on the ground that he might try to shirk his obligation to pay
maintenance. Against the last of these decisions dated .. February, 1965, the
applicant appealed to the Administrative Court at Cologne but apparently
without success.

On .. May, 1967, the applicant's lawyer made a new request to the
above-mentioned authority to have an international travel document issued to
the applicant for a journey abroad. On .. May, 1967, the authority, under
Article 19, paragraph (2) No. 4, of the Aliens Act of 1965, formally
prohibited the applicant from going abroad on the ground that there was an
immediate danger that he would shirk his liability to pay maintenance. At the
same time the applicant was requested under Article 3 of the Aliens Act to
apply for an international travel document as an identity paper for his stay
in the Federal Republic. The applicant was informed of his right to object
(Widerspruch einlegen) to this order within a month from receipt. Whether he
has subsequently seized the competent Administrative Court is not clear. The
applicant has only submitted a carbon copy of a letter of .. July, 1967, in
which he protests against the decision of .. May, 1967.

The applicant submits that this decision is contrary to the Geneva Convention
on the Status of Refugees and of the German Statute of 25th April, 1951, on
the Status of Displaced Persons (über die Rechtsstellung Heimatloser
Ausländer) and complains that by reason of the prohibition to go abroad he has
been unable to carry out a number of important professional missions and has
suffered considerable financial losses and claims damages. The applicant
considers that he has been "interned" since 1961.

He alleges that in 1963/1964 and again at present the authorities are
preparing his expulsion or extradition to the Soviet Union where he would be
subjected to torture and severe punishment for his anti-communist activities.
In this respect he submits a copy of a letter of November, 1963, from the
lawyer of the "Association for the Protection of Children and Mothers" to the
Ministry of Interior of North-Rhine-Westphalia in which the lawyer complains
of the applicant's continuous interferences with the education of his niece
and nephew and suggests to "bring him to his senses" by a threat of
extradition. On .. October, 1963, also the competent administrative authority
of the City of Munich requested the analogous authority in Bonn, to take
against the applicant measures under the Aliens Ordinance
(Ausländerpolizeiverordnung). The authority in Bonn, however, informed the
applicant on .. May, 1967, that they had not intended his expulsion in 1963
and 1964. The applicant has submitted no details and evidence with regard to
his allegation that his expulsion is at present being prepared.

On .. and .. July, 1968, the applicant telephoned and added to his submissions
that it was becoming more and more apparent that the Ministry of Interior took
an extremely hostile attitude towards him and that compatriots of his living
in Munich had been questioned by the authorities as to whether he should be
expelled to the Soviet Union. On .. July, 1968, the applicant submitted his
travel document issued by the German authorities with reference to the Geneva
Convention of .. July, 1951, on the status of refugees. This passport is valid
up to 10 July, 1969, but bears the mention "prohibition to leave the country
(Ausreiseverbot)".

The applicant has also referred to the situation of political refugees in the
Federal Republic in general. He has stated in particular that Soviet agents
are allowed to murder or kidnap such refugees without any action being taken
by the Federal Republic.

VI. With regard to the above-mentioned proceedings before the District Court
of Bonn and the Administrative Court of Cologne and some further proceedings
before the Labour Court of Bonn, the applicant had to pay several amounts of
court and lawyers' fees.

By a decision (Kostenfeststellungsbeschluss) of .. August, notified on ..
August, 1967, the Registrar (Urkundenbeamter der Geschäftsstelle) of the
District Court of Bonn ordered the applicant to pay certain fees to Mr. W. who
had been one of his lawyers in the paternity suit. The applicant raised an
objection (Erinnerung) on .. and .. September, 1967, but on .. September,
1967, the District Court rejected this objection as being raised out of time.

Another lawyer who had acted for him in the paternity suit, Mrs. V., obtained
on .. August, 1967, a judgment of the District Court for her fees and on ..
September, 1967, a further decision of the registry for the costs involved in
the action for payment of fees. On .. September, 1967, in a letter addressed
both to Mrs. V and Mr. W. the applicant protested against his obligation to
pay the lawyers's fees since he considered that both lawyers had not
represented him adequately and requested that the lawyers should repay the
fees already received.

For the execution of the various decisions to pay court and lawyers' fees a
number of orders attaching the applicant's salary at the Press Club, were
issued on .. August, .. September, .. and .. October, 1967. From the documents
submitted by the applicant it appears that he raised before the District Court
of Bonn objections (Erinnerung) against two of these orders issued on ..
August and .. September, 1967. These objections were rejected on .. October,
1967, upon his appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) by the Regional Court. The Courts
stated that contrary to the applicant's assumptions, only the part of the
salary exceeding a certain minimum fixed by law (pfändbarer Teil) would be
affected by the distraint orders. As to the further submissions by which the
orders had been made, the Court pointed out that such submissions could not be
made in an objection concerning only the execution measure itself.

The applicant complains generally that by the various execution measures he no
longer has sufficient means for his living.

Whereas the applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows:

He alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, paragraph (1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14
and 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of numerous provisions of
the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and of various German legal
provisions.

The applicant requests that the civil and criminal decisions concerning the
obligation to pay alimony for Gabriel E. and the prohibition to travel abroad
should be set aside and that he should be granted damages. He demands an
investigation of his charges against the judicial authorities in connection
with the deportation of his brother and the proceedings concerning the custody
of his niece and nephew and reintegration of the two children in the religious
and ethnical group of their father. He also requests the Commission to
investigate the alleged plans of the authorities to deport him to the Soviet
Union.

THE LAW

I. As to the complaints concerning the question of the guardianship and
religious education of the applicant's niece and nephew;

Whereas the applicant reintroduces certain complaints concerning the
guardianship over his nephew and niece and their religious education which
were already raised in his previous Application No. 1003/61;
Whereas, however, their complaints were not determined by the Commission which
struck this application off its list of cases as the applicant, having moved,
failed to keep the Commission informed of his change of address;

Whereas, as in his previous application, the applicant first complains
generally that, although being the uncle of the two children and having been
specifically entrusted with their education by their father, Abad X., he was
not awarded guardianship over them; whereas the Commission has examined this
complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees everyone
the right to respect for the family life; whereas, in order that this
provision should be applicable, it must be shown that such a link existed
between the applicant and the two children as can be considered to establish
family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas the Commission
finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, the relationship between
the uncle and nephew and niece cannot be said to amount to such a link;
whereas in this respect it is particularly observed that the applicant and his
brother's children are not, and have not been, living together in the same
household;

Whereas in these circumstances the decision concerning the guardianship of the
children did not affect the applicant's family life within the meaning of
Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas consequently there is no appearance of a violation
of Article 8 (Art. 8);

Whereas, secondly, the applicant complains specifically that his niece and
nephew are estranged from their own Moslem religion by being brought up in a
Catholic institution and alleges in this respect a violation of Article 9
(Art. 9) ,which protects the right of freedom of religion;

Whereas in this respect the question might arise whether the applicant,
although not a direct victim of the alleged violation of the right of his
niece and nephew to religious freedom, can nevertheless be considered in the
circumstances of the case as having such moral interest in their religious
education and as being so affected, albeit indirectly, by the alleged
violation as to be considered a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art.
25); whereas, however, the Commission does not find it necessary to determine
this question since in any event there is no appearance of a violation of the
children's right to religious freedom; whereas the Commission observes in this
respect that, under the German law concerning the religious education of
children, any child from the age of 14 has the right to determine freely his
religion; whereas the applicant's niece and nephew are at present 21 and 20
years old and whereas there is nothing to suggest that they are prevented from
freely exercising this right; whereas consequently there can no longer
possibly exist any violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention;

Whereas it follows that the applicant's complaints concerning his niece and
nephew are manifestly ill-founded both as regards the question of guardianship
and of the religious education; whereas therefore these complaints must be
rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

II. As to the complaints concerning the expulsion of the applicant's brother
Abad X.[/align]