X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2457/65 [1967] ECHR 21 (10 July 1967)

 X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2457/65 [1967] ECHR 21 (10 July 1967) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2457/65 [1967] ECHR 21 (10 July 1967) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1967/2457_65.html Cite as: [1967] ECHR 21 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Help ] X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2457/65 [1967] ECHR 21 (10 July 1967) THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant states that he is a German citizen of Lithuanian origin, born in 1925 and living at Bielefeld. His complaints are as follows: I. In a previous Application (No. 1709/62) the Applicant alleged that he was wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution. On 8th July, 1964, the Commission rejected that Application on the grounds that it was, in part, inadmissible ratione temporis and that the remainder was incompatible with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2). In his present Application, the Applicant renews his allegation that he is wrongly refused compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution. He states that the final decision in his case was given by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on .. December, 1963, and submits that the Federal Compensation Act (Bundesentschädigungsgesetz) and its application in his case constitute continuing violations of Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 2 of the Protocol. II. In a letter of .. October, 1966, the Applicant also complains that, in the Federal Republic of Germany, he and other persons of Lithuanian stock are not given any opportunity to have their children educated in the Lithuanian language. THE LAW Whereas the Commission, on 8th July, 1964, delivered a decision in which it declared Application No. 1709/62 lodged by the Applicant to be inadmissible; Whereas, under Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not deal with any application submitted under Article 25 (Art. 25) if it is substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information; whereas, in his complaints mentioned in part I of the above statement of facts, the Applicant repeats the complaints made by him in Application No. 1709/62; and whereas he does not submit any relevant new information in regard to these complaints; Whereas this part of the present Application must accordingly be rejected in pursuance of Article 27, paragraph (1) (b) (Art. 27-1-b); Whereas the Applicant also complains that, in the Federal Republic of Germany, he and other persons of Lithuanian stock are not given any opportunity to have their children educated in the Lithuanian language; whereas in this respect 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; 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, in the present case, the Commission does not feel called upon to decide the question whether the right to education claimed by the Applicant is included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention as, in any event, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law; whereas in this respect the Commission has frequently stated that the remedy by means of a constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), for matters within the competence of that Court, is a domestic remedy which in principle falls within the scope of Article 26 (Art. 26) (see Application No. 1086/61, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 5, pages 148 [154]); whereas, under Article 90 of the Act on the Federal Constitutional Court (Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht), everyone has the right to lodge a constitutional appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court alleging a violation by a public authority of one of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany; Whereas, in respect of the Applicant's above complaint concerning the situation of persons of Lithuanian stock in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission has had regard to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention which provides that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race, language, national origin or association with a national minority; whereas this provision corresponds to Article 3, paragraph (3) of the Basic Law which states that no one may be prejudiced or favoured because of his race, his language or his homeland and origin; Whereas, however, the Applicant failed to lodge a constitutional appeal based on this Article; whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted the remedies available to him 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 his disposal; Whereas it follows that, insofar as the right to education claimed by the Applicant may be guaranteed by the Convention, he has not complied with 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. Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1967/2457_65.html