Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (prisoner)
Country Germany
Decision no. 2300/64
Date 10/02/1967
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded; Ratione personae; Ratione materiae
Type of privacy Informational Privacy
Keywords Prisoner; right to correspondence; right to reputation; horizontal claim; victim requirement
Facts of the case Prisoner beliefs he has been ill-treated on a number of points
Analysis This case is interesting for three reasons:

1. The Commission highlights that where the applicant complains of the ill-treatment of an Algerian prisoner, this claim must be rejected because the applicant is not himself the victim of a violation (ratione personae).
2. The Commission highlights that where the applicant complains about the conduct of his lawyer, this claim must be rejected because an application may only be directed at Member States and not private individuals or organizations (ratione personae).
3. The applicant also complains that many letters which he had written in prison had not been forwarded, among others to his lawyer, because they were considered to be defamatory or offensive. He also complained that a prison officer made certain antisemitic statements. To these claims, the Commission simply holds that the case does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 ECHR. Inter alia, the right to reputation was not yet included in the scope of the right to privacy at this point in time.

Documents Decision