British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3771/68 [1969] ECHR 15 (15 December 1969)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1969/3771_68.html
Cite as: [1969] ECHR 15
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3771/68 [1969] ECHR 15 (15 December 1969)
THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1908, and resident in Berlin. From her statements and from documents submitted by her, it appears that in 1958 her son was arrested in Berlin under suspicion of having committed criminal offenses. The applicant maintains that her son has been beaten by police officers while being interrogated at the police station and suffered injuries from which he never fully recovered. She states that on .. May, 1958, she laid with the police criminal charges against persons unknown for having committed grievous bodily harm in the execution of official functions (schwere Körperverletzung im Amt). According to the applicant, no action was taken with regard to her charges. She states that, on .. February, 1959, she examined the police diary on the .. Police Station in Berlin, and subsequently repeated the charges laid by her, addressing herself this time to the Attorney-General's Office (Generalstaatsanwalt). She now also charged the police officer concerned with having falsified documents. According to the applicant, again no action was taken with regard to these charges. She states that, on .. June, 1961, she complained of such inaction to the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) and was informed on .. May, 1962, by the Police Prosecutor's Office that the investigations had been resumed. It appears that on .. August, 1962, they were discontinued. Subsequently, proceedings for having made false accusations (falsche Anschuldigung) were instituted against the applicant. It appears that on .. October, 1964, she was put on trial before the District Court (Schöffengericht) of Berlin-Tiergarten, but the case was adjourned, the Court having made an order for the applicant's psychiatric examination. She states that the consistently refused this examination which she considered as being degrading. According to the applicant, the trial continued on .. January, 1967. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment, but her sentence was suspended. It appears that the applicant appealed (Berufung) against this judgment to the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht) but her appeal was rejected on .. July, 1967. Her further appeal (Revision) was dismissed as being clearly ill-founded on .. January, 1968. This decision was communicated to her on .. January, 1968. The applicant further states that, on .. January, 1967, she was also convicted by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for making insulting remarks (Beleidigung) and sentenced to a fine of DM 300. It appears that these proceedings were the result of remarks which the applicant had made about District Judge F., following civil proceedings for damages against her son. According to the indictment of .. February, 1965, the applicant had stated in writing that Judge F. had committed official favouritism (Begünstigung im Amt) and had aided and abetted fraud (Beihilfe zum Betrug). The applicant does not give any further particular with regard to these proceedings against her. She now alleges the following violations of the Convention: 1. Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (2) in that certain official files allegedly contained a note by the Berlin Chief of Police to the effect that rigorous measures should be taken against the N. family. This remark showed that she was not presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and that the courts had been biased against her. 2. Article 6, paragraph 3 (b), in that, on .. January, 1967, she was tried for having made insulting remarks without having been notified or without having received the decision to open trial (Eröffnungsbeschluss) with regard to that charge. Consequently, she had not been able adequately to prepare her defence in that case. 3. Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) in that important evidence in her favour had not been examined by the courts. In this respect, she states that she had repeatedly requested the courts to examine her letters which she had written to her son while he was in prison and which had been confiscated, a certain police record which would clarify her charges of falsification of documents, all pleadings and motions submitted by her son's defence counsel during the criminal proceedings against her son and three police diaries kept at the .... Police Station. On all occasions, the courts had failed to examine the evidence. The applicant also seems to complain that the proceedings against her have taken a considerable length of time and that the police allegedly had published in the press a full account of her conviction, charging her with the costs of that publication. THE LAW Whereas, with regard to the applicant's complaint concerning her conviction and sentence by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for making false accusations, it is to be observed that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the Berlin Court of Appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this complaint, was given on .. January, 1968; whereas the present application was not submitted to the Commission until 5th August, 1968, that is, more than six months after the date of this decision; whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this part of the application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention); Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints concerning her further conviction and sentence by the District Court of Berlin-Tiergarten for making insulting remarks, it is 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; and whereas the applicant failed to show that she appealed against the said District Court's decision of .. January, 1967; whereas, therefore, she has not exhausted the remedies available to her under German law; whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, 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 her 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 regard to the applicant's complaint that the Berlin prosecuting authorities refused to take any action on the charges laid by her and prosecute certain police officers, it is to be 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 no right to have criminal proceedings instituted against police officers and private individuals is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; Whereas in this respect the Commission refers to its constant jurisprudence, e.g. Application No. 1599/62, Yearbook, Vol. VI, pages 348, 354; 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; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE