[align=left]Whereas the applicant further alleges that in 1962 his brother Abad X. was
deported to the Soviet Union against his will and in spite of the fact that
having fought in the German army during the war, he had the status of a
refugee; whereas the applicant complains that the criminal charges, which he
laid in 1966 and 1967 against judges and other persons responsible for the
alleged political deportation of his brother, were not proceeded with; whereas
in this respect it is 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 the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges or
other persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the Convention; whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its
previous decisions, No. 2646 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 19, page 89) and
No. 2942 (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 23, page 51); 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;

III. As to the complaints concerning the civil proceedings and decisions under
which the applicant has to pay alimony for the illegitimate child;

Whereas, in regard to the proceedings and the decisions in the District Court
and Regional Court of Bonn, 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 that 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 No. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium - Yearbook III, p. 233) and No. 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 this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

IV. As to the complaints concerning the criminal proceedings against the
applicant;

Whereas the applicant also complains of the criminal proceedings conducted
against him in Munich and of his conviction on .. May, 1967, by the District
Court;

Whereas in this respect it is first to be observed that, under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after
all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally
recognised rules of international law; whereas the applicant has failed to
supply any information as to the result of the appeal which he lodged with the
Regional Court and whereas thus it is not clear whether these appeal
proceedings are still pending; whereas there would also exist the possibility
of a further appeal (Revision) to the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht);
whereas, therefore, the applicant has not shown that he has exhausted the
remedies available to him under German law;

Whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, does
not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have
absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal;
whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies
laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the
Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas in any event an examination of the complaints concerning the criminal
proceedings as they have been submitted, does not disclose an appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in
particular in the Articles invoked by the applicant; whereas it follows that
this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

V. As to the complaints concerning the applicant's travel document and the
alleged threat of his deportation;

Whereas the applicant complains on the one hand that, since 1961, he was
refused a travel document and, on .. May, 1967, was expressly forbidden to
leave the Federal Republic; whereas on the other hand he alleges that the
German authorities are preparing his expulsion to the Soviet Union;

Whereas with regard to these complaints it is first recalled that the
Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guaranteed only the rights
and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention and that, 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 certain further rights and freedoms have been added by
the provisions of the First Protocol to the Convention (P1), which, under
Article 5 of the First Protocol (P1-5), shall be regarded as additional
Articles to the Convention; whereas the examination of any complaint not
relating to one of the rights and freedoms thus guaranteed is outside the
competence of the Commission ratione materiae; whereas both the rights claimed
by the applicant are not as such included among the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas with regard
to the right to leave a country and to be granted the necessary papers for
this purpose the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 1976/61, T. against the Federal Republic of
Germany, and 1925/63, F. against Belgium; whereas, as regards the right not to
be expelled from a particular country, the Commission refers to its decisions
on the admissibility of Applications No. 1802/62, Yearbook of the European
Convention on Human Rights, Vol. VI, pages 462 (478) and No. 3040/67,
Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133 (136); whereas it follows that
this aspect 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;

Whereas the Commission has also had regard ex officio to the Fourth Protocol
(P4) to the Convention which entered into force for the Federal Republic on
1st June, 1968, and which, in Article 2, paragraph (2) (P4-2-2), protects the
freedom to leave any country and in Article 4 (P4-4) forbids collective
expulsion of aliens; whereas, however, Article 6, paragraph 2 of this Protocol
(P4-6-2) provides that "the right of individual recourse recognised by a
declaration made under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention ... shall not be
effective in relation to this Protocol unless the High Contracting Party
concerned has made a statement recognising such right ... in respect of all or
any of Articles 1 to 4 of the Protocol (P1-1, P1-2, P1-3, P1-4)"; whereas it
follows that for the time being the Commission has no competence to examine
any individual application directed against the Federal Republic of Germany in
the light of the provisions of the Fourth Protocol (P4);

Whereas the Commission has finally had regard to the applicant's allegation
that the German authorities prepared his expulsion to the Soviet Union and
that in view of his past and present political activities he would risk severe
punishment and inhuman treatment in that country;

Whereas it is true that, according to the Commission's constant jurisprudence,
the deportation or extradition of a foreigner to a particular country may in
exceptional circumstances give rise to the question whether there would be
"inhuman treatment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention
; whereas in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 984/61, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 6,
pages 256 (260) and No. 3040/67, Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, pages 133
(138); whereas, however, the applicant has failed to submit an element of
proof to support his allegation that the German authorities have decided upon,
or are at least preparing, his expulsion to the Soviet Union; whereas the
Commission observes in this connection that according to the documents
submitted by the applicant he appears to be recognised as a political refugee
under the Geneva Convention of 28th July, 1951, which is also in force in the
Federal Republic of Germany, and whereas, consequently, any expulsion to the
Soviet Union would be excluded under German law; whereas consequently the
Commission finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

VI. As to the complaints concerning the distraint orders made against the
applicant for the enforcement of his obligation to pay court and lawyer's
fees;

Whereas, with regard to the distraint orders made against him, the applicant
only complains generally that by the various execution measures he no longer
has sufficient means for his living; whereas, in this respect again, it is
recalled that the Commission is only competent ratione materiae to examine the
alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and the First Protocol (P1); whereas the question to what extent a
person's livelihood may be affected by any of the provisions of the Convention
or the First Protocol (P1);

Whereas in this context the Commission refers to its previous decisions on the
admissibility of Applications No. 159/56 (Yearbook Vol. I, documents and
decisions 1955-57, page 202) and No. 2498/65 (M. against Austria, unpublished
decision of 6th February, 1967) where it was stated that no right to an
adequate standard of living is as such included among the guaranteed rights
and freedoms; whereas it follows that the applicant's above-mentioned
complaint is also 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]