[align=left]3. Le requérant allègue une violation de la Convention, de la Loi relative Ã
l'Accord du 28 juillet, 1951, concernant le Statut des réfugiés et de la Loi
du 25 avril, 1951, relative au Statut des étrangers sans domicile.

En particulier, il se prétend victime d'une violation de l'article 6 (3) a. Il
n'aurait pas été "informé, dans le plus court délai, dans une langue qu'il
comprend et d'une manière détaillée, de la nature et de la cause de
l'accusation portée contre lui". En outre, le procès se serait déroulé dans
une langue qu'il ne comprenait pas et par la faute de son interprète il
n'aurait pu faire valoir ses droits de manière efficace. De façon générale,
l'éducation des enfants dans une institution catholique serait incompatible
avec leur confession.

4. Le requérant demande que tous les frais judiciaires soient pris en charge
et qu'on lui confie les soins de son neveu et de sa nièce."

His last communication concerning that application was dated .. March, 1962,
and a letter addressed to him by the Commission's Secretary of .. January,
1963, was returned marked "parti sans laisser d'adresse".

Having particular regard to these facts, the Commission decided on 23rd
September, 1963, to strike Application No. 1003/61 off its list of cases.

C. On 11th August, 1066, the applicant wrote again and complained about a
different matter. The usual application form was sent to him on 19th August,
1966, but he returned the completed form only on 2nd April, 1967.

In his present application he resumes the subject of Application No. 1003/61
and raises a number of further matters without always making it clear whether
he wants to complain of them or only refers to them in connection with other
complaints.

I. As regards the custody of his nephew and niece, the applicant repeats in
substance his submissions made in the previous application and submits some
further details.

He asks for a reconsideration of this complaint and states that in 1962/63 he
changed his address in Bonn four times but always informed the post office in
order to have mail forwarded to the new address. In spite of repeated requests
he has, however, not submitted an documentary evidence in this respect.

In addition to his previous submissions concerning the proceedings related to
the custody of the children, the applicant now alleges that two certificates
on a catholic baptism of the children of .. February, 1957, and .. May, 1953,
on which the courts had relied in their decisions, particularly the Regional
Court of Munich in its decision of .. January, 1961, were in fact falsified or
even non-existent. He affirms that these certificates indicate wrong dates of
birth of the children. He also alleges, as in his previous Application No.
1003/61, that according to the records of the children's home in Fürth the
mother had indicated in 1950 and 1953 that the children were Moslems. In his
view these facts prove that the certificates of baptism are falsified. In
particular, he submits that he was four times given a power-of-attorney to
represent his brother in questions relating to the children. He further states
that the responsible persons (Heimleiter) of the catholic institutions where
the children had been put on several occasions between 1954 and 1957 informed
the schools concerned in writing that the children were catholics and should
be educated accordingly. These requests were signed by the responsible persons
as "guardians", although the applicant's brother at this time was entitled to
exercise the paternal authority.

With regard to the subsequent proceedings it appears from the applicant's
present submissions that on .. July, 1961, upon his appeal the Bavarian
Supreme Court set aside the decision appointing as guardian the "Association
for the Protection of Children and Mothers" since technically not the
Association but only its managing committee (Vorstand) could have been
appointed. The Court sent the case back for reconsideration pointing out that
a guardian of this kind should only be appointed where no appropriate private
individual can be appointed. But it appears that on .. August, 1961, the
District Court appointed the managing committee of the same association
stating that no appropriate individual was available. The applicant obviously
never obtained the guardianship over his nephew and niece. On the contrary, by
further District Court decisions of .. January, 1963, and .. February, 1964,
he was refused and even forbidden any further contact with the children.

On .. December, 1963, the applicant lodged with the Public Prosecutor's Office
(Staatsanwaltschaft) in Munich, a request to prosecute three District Court
judges who had dealt with the issue of the guardianship, Mr. A., Dr. B. and
Dr. C., for "having estranged the children from the Islam"
("Entislamisierung") and for "acting as Soviet agents" ("Tätigkeit als
Sowjetfunktionäre"). On .. January, 1964, the Public Prosecutor's Office
informed him that there was no reason to institute criminal proceedings
against the judges. An appeal (Beschwerde) lodged by the applicant was
dismissed by the Attorney-General (Generalstaatsanwalt) on .. March, 1964. It
does not appear that the applicant lodged a request for a judicial decision
(Klageerzwingungsverfahren) by the Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).[/align]