23 ينويو 2014

د.اشرف شمس الدين

آخـــر الــمــواضــيــع

النتائج 1 إلى 7 من 7

الموضوع: X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3110/67 [1968] ECHR 14 (19 July 1968)

  1. #1

    افتراضي X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3110/67 [1968] ECHR 14 (19 July 1968)

    [align=left]THE FACTS

    Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant and appearing from the
    documents submitted by him may be summarised as follows:

    A. The applicant is a political refugee from the Soviet Union born in 1920 at
    Boka in Turkestan and at present living in Bonn, where he works for the Press
    Club. During the war he fought in the German army and after the defeat of
    Germany he remained and hid in Germany in order to avoid expulsion or
    extradition to the Soviet Union.

    He is now represented by Rechtsanwältin Y., a lawyer practising at Beuel am
    Rhein.

    B. The applicant has lodged, on 17th January, 1961, a previous Application No.
    1003/61 the facts of which were summarised as follows:

    "1. Le requérant a réclamé depuis 1960 la tutelle sur son neveu Turdi X., né
    le 18 janvier 1948, et sa nièce, Ursula X., née le 20 janvier 1947, mais en
    vain.

    Le père des enfants en question, Abadt X., vit depuis la guerre en Allemagne
    où il s'est marié en 1947. Il a divorcé le .. avril, 9152, et a été placé, par
    la suite, dans une maison de desintoxication alcoolique de Bayreuth. Il a été
    cependant libéré sous condition.

    Le .. avril, 9160, le Tribunal des tutelles de Munich (Amtsgericht) a déclaré
    la déchéance de la puissance paternelle sur les enfants Turdi et Ursula X. et
    a nommé, le .. mai, 1960, l'"Association pour la protection de l'enfant et de
    la mère" (Verein für Kinder- und Mutterschutz) tuteur.

    2. Le requérant a alors porté plainte, le .. juillet, 1960, auprès du Tribunal
    régional I (Landgericht) de Munich. Dans son recours il a invoqué notamment le
    lien de parenté entre lui et les enfants - il est le demi-frère d'Abadt X. -
    et il a demandé de lui transférer la tutelle. X. a en outre affirmé que les
    enfants étaient de confession musulmane et qu'il était inadmissible de les
    éduquer dans une institution catholique. Il a demandé, en même temps, de
    permettre aux enfants de fréquenter une école supérieure (Oberschule).

    Le .. août, 1960, le Tribunal régional a ordonné au tuteur d'accepter
    l'admission des enfants à une école supérieure de Munich. Une demande
    ultérieure du requérant de restreindre davantage les droits du tuteur, ä
    savoir de lui permettre la communication avec les enfants, a été repoussée le
    .. août, 1960. Le Stadtjugendamt et la mère des enfants se seraient opposés Ã
    un transfert de la tutelle au requérant.

    Le .. janvier, 1961, la 13ème Chambre du Tribunal régional a rejeté le recours
    du requérant du .. juillet, 1960. Le Tribunal a repoussé, en même temps, une
    plainte d'Abadt X. du .. novembre, 1960.

    Maître Z., avocat à Munich, a introduit, au nom du requérant de d'Abadt X., un
    recours immédiat (sofortige Beschwerde) auprès de la Court d'appel suprême de
    Bavière (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht).

    Nous ne savons pas quelle suite a été donné au dernier recours.[/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  2. #2

    افتراضي

    [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]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  3. #3

    افتراضي

    [align=left]On .. September, 1965, the applicant represented by Mr. W., a lawyer
    practising in Bonn, apparently requested that the District Court of Munich
    should appoint him as a special curator (Pfleger) of the children in religious
    questions. The Association appointed as guardian was heard and on .. November,
    1965, opposed this request pointing out that the children themselves wished to
    be catholic. Reference was made to the German Act covering the Religious
    Education of Children, under which a child's religion may not be changed
    against his will after the age of 12 and the child has the right to decide
    freely on his religion after the age of 14. The applicant has given no
    information on the decision taken by the Court in these proceedings. But
    apparently his request remained without success.

    II. In his present application the applicant further alleges that, on .. July,
    1962, his half-brother Abad X. was deported to the Soviet Union.

    In this respect, it appears that Abad X. had been convicted on .. July, 1962,
    by the District Court of Munich, of having committed an offense in a state of
    intoxication (Art. 330a of the Penal Code) and sentenced to 7 months'
    imprisonment and committed to an institution for alcoholics. The applicant
    alleges that the director of the "Association for the Protection of Children
    and Mothers" which acted as guardian of the children, and the director of
    Stadelheim Prison in Munich where Abad X. was detained had him deported to the
    Soviet Union against his will.

    According to the applicant, two declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..
    February, 1962, indicating Abad X's consent to the repatriation had been
    forged by the judges. He also contests the authenticity of a document of ..
    April, 1961, in which Mrs. D. of Taschkent, the mother of Abad X. and
    stepmother of the applicant, declares to the Soviet Embassy in Bonn that she
    is willing to accommodate and support her son Abad X. As a result of this
    declaration the Soviet Embassy had consented on .. May, 1962, to the
    repatriation of Abad X. It appears that the expulsion was finally effected on
    the basis of a decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich of ..
    July, 1962. The applicant was not informed about the expulsion of his brother.

    More than four years later, on .. September, 1966, after having received
    copies of the two above-mentioned declarations of .. December, 1959, and ..
    February, 1962, the applicant lodged with the Federal Attorney-General
    (Generalbundesanwalt) a request to prosecute the unknown persons responsible
    for what he considers the political deportation (politische Verschleppung) of
    his brother. The matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor's Office in
    Munich as being the competent authority and the enquiry was discontinued on ..
    January, 1967, on the ground that there was no appearance of a criminal
    offence. The Public Prosecutor stated that Abad X. himself had applied in
    person to the Soviet Embassy for his repatriation. In this context the Public
    Prosecutor also referred to the above-mentioned documents.

    Also on .. January, 1967, the Public Prosecutor dismissed a further criminal
    charge laid by the applicant against four District Court judges of Munich whom
    he accused of having forged the declaration of Abad X. His brother, having
    fought in the German army during the war, would never have signed a request
    for repatriation.

    The applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal of his charges which on
    .. January, 1967, was rejected by the Attorney-General at the Court of Appeal
    (Generalstaatsanwalt). In the decision the applicant was informed of the right
    of the victim of a criminal offence, under Article 172, paragraph 2, of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure, to request a judicial decision by the Court of
    Appeal (Klageerzwingungsverfahren). But it appears that he failed to lodge
    such a request.

    The applicant further states that he has only recently been granted access to
    certain documents relating to his brother's deportation. On one of these
    documents he has found a reference to "the efforts of the Eastern Powers to
    repatriate political emigrants". He submits that this must be a reference to
    an Agreement of 16th November, 1939, between the German Reich and the Soviet
    Union concerning resettlement of certain populations in the "zones of
    interest" of the two countries, or to some subsequent analogous agreement.

    III. Further complaints of the applicant concern his obligation to pay alimony
    for an illegitimate child Gabriel E. born on 17th May, 1952, and the civil and
    criminal proceedings which were conducted against him in this respect.

    After first having contested on .. July, 1952, being the father, since the
    mother had also had relations with other men, he signed on .. July, 1952, on
    the ground that he had only recognised the child since the mother Magdalena E.
    had promised to marry him, but had, in fact, subsequently married another man.

    In 1957 and 1959 the District Court of Fürstenfeldbruck increased the amount
    of maintenance to 50 and 65 DM respectively.[/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  4. #4

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    In 1961 an action for a further increase was brought before the District Court
    in Fürstenfeldbruck and subsequently referred to the District Court in Bonn
    where the applicant had taken up residence. The applicant, although admitting
    intimate relations with the mother of Gabriel E., contested being the father
    of the child and the mother herself admitted having had relations with other
    men.

    On .. February, 1963, the Court obtained an expert opinion based on the blood
    groups of the applicant and of the child and concluded that his paternity was
    not excluded. On .. April, 1963, the Court decided to obtain from a university
    institute of Munich a further expert opinion based on the hereditary
    characteristics of the applicant and the child. But the applicant refused
    several times to appear for the necessary examination in Munich since he had
    understood from the institute charged with the examination that the opinion
    could not come to any conclusions in view of his racial particularities as a
    Turkestani. On .. March, 1964, the District Court in Bonn imposed a fine of
    100 DM because of the applicant's refusal to appear for the examination, but
    upon appeal this decision was quashed by the Regional Court on .. July, 1964.

    On .. November, 1964, the applicant, when calling in person on the competent
    District Court judge Mr. F., was informed that the decision of .. April, 1963,
    concerning the opinion to be obtained from the Munich university institute had
    been set aside, but that another expert opinion would be obtained in criminal
    proceedings which had been instituted in Munich against the applicant for
    failure to pay maintenance. In fact, the District Court judge, Dr. G., in
    Munich decided only some days later on .. November, 1964, to obtain such an
    expert opinion and informed the applicant only in mid-December of this
    decision which had been known to the District Court judge F. in Bonn already
    on .. November, 1964.

    Thereupon, on .. December, 1964, the applicant challenged Mr. F., as being
    prejudiced. This challenge was rejected on .. January, 1965, by the Regional
    Court judge (Landgerichtsrat) H. The applicant lodged an appeal (sofortige
    Beschwerde) which was rejected by the Court of Appeal on .. April, 1965.

    In the meantime, on .. March, 1965, Professor Dr. I., the expert charged by
    the District Court of Munich had given his expert opinion and concluded that,
    in all probability, the applicant is the father of Gabriel E.

    On .. July, 1965, the applicant then submitted that his relations with the
    mother had in fact been outside the possible period of conception. He further
    submitted that, when signing the declaration of paternity of .. July, 1952, he
    had not intended to recognise the child as his own but to adopt it in view of
    the intended marriage with the mother, which only had to be postponed pending
    receipt of certain necessary papers. According to him he had misunderstood the
    sense of the declaration due to his insufficient knowledge of German and the
    court official had falsified the document.

    In view of the applicant's previous attitude the District Court of Bonn
    rejected these submissions as being untrue and gave judgment against the
    applicant on .. July, 1965. This decision was given by Judge H. who in the
    meantime had been moved from the Regional Court to the District Court and had
    replaced Judge F. It appears that the applicant had unsuccessfully tried to
    challenge him on the basis of Article 41, paragraph 6, of the Code of Civil
    Procedure which excludes judges who have participated in a decision under
    review.

    The applicant appealed from the District Court judgment of .. July, 1965, to
    the Regional Court and requested free legal aid for the appeal proceedings.
    The latter request was rejected on .. July, 1966, on the ground that his
    appeal offered no sufficient prospect of success. On .. July, 1966, the
    Regional Court ordered a supplementary blood grouping test on the basis of two
    new scientific methods (Duffy and Gmx). The Court requested the applicant to
    pay within a certain time-limit 200 DM in advance for the expenses of this
    expert opinion but the applicant failed to do so even after the Court had
    extended the time-limit and only requested a further extension on the ground
    that he could not afford the amount since he was on holiday. In view of the
    fact that the case had already been pending since 1961 the Court informed the
    applicant that no further extension could be granted, and when he failed to
    comply with the order within the time-limit, it proceeded with the case on the
    basis of the evidence previously obtained, in particular the two expert
    opinions of .. February, 1963, and .. March, 1965.

    On .. October, 1966, the Regional Court rejected his appeal and confirmed the
    District Court decision that the applicant was to be considered as the father
    of Gabriel E. The amount of maintenance to be paid for the child up to the age
    of 18 was fixed at 80 DM per month as of .. March, 1963, at 90 DM as of ..
    September, 1963, and at 100 DM as of .. January, 1966.

    The applicant alleges an improper and illegal procedure by the Regional Court
    of Bonn. In this respect he alleges that Judge H. who had first decided as a
    Regional Court judge on the challenge against the District Court Judge F., and
    later replaced that judge in the District Court and given the District Court
    judgment, later acted again as judge of the Regional Court in the appeal
    proceedings. According to the orders and the judgment given by the Regional
    Court in the appeal proceedings, Judge H. did, however, not participate in any
    of these decisions.

    It appears that the applicant intended to challenge the judges of the Regional
    Court panel dealing with his case, but that his first lawyer, Dr. W., then
    withdrew from the case and that a new lawyer Mrs. V. although first appearing
    prepared to challenge the judges finally failed to do so and apparently also
    withdrew from the case.

    In his application the applicant complains generally that the decisions as to
    his paternity are wrong. He states that it is impossible, according to the
    circumstances, that he was the father of Gabriel E. He quotes from statements
    of certain scientists of Frankfurt who found that the expert opinion of
    Professor I. was based on wrong assumptions. He complains that the expert
    failed to examine early photographs of him and photographs of his relatives
    and to compare them with the appearance of the child. With regard to the
    document of .. July, 1952, according to which he had recognised that he was
    the father, he repeats that this did not reflect properly his intentions and
    declarations. He states that in the course of the proceedings before the
    District Court of Bonn, he had "invalidated" ("kraftlos gemacht") this
    declaration and the subsequent judgments on the basis of Article 6, paragraph
    (3) (a), of the Convention. He accuses the judges who dealt with his case of
    bias and hostility against foreigners in particular against political refugees
    from the Soviet Union, and alleges that the paternity suit has been instigated
    by Soviet agents who try to ruin him financially. He affirms that he has
    suffered economic losses in the amount of 150,000 DM.

    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  5. #5

    افتراضي

    [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]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  6. #6

    افتراضي

    [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]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  7. #7

    افتراضي

    [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]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

المواضيع المتشابهه

  1. X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC GERMANY - 3347/67 [1968] ECHR 18 (11 July 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 01:41 AM
  2. W., X., Y. AND Z. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3479/68 [1968] ECHR 4 (19 July 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 1
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 01:40 AM
  3. X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2699/65 [1968] ECHR 9 (01 April 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 2
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:37 AM
  4. Dr. M. G. SOLTIKOW v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2257/64 [1968] ECHR 5 (05 Apr
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 7
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:34 AM
  5. X. & CO. (ENGLAND) LTD v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3147/67 [1968] ECHR 1
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:26 AM

المفضلات

المفضلات

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •