[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]