[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]

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