[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]