| Applicant name |
X.
|
| Applicant type |
Natural Person (prisoner)
|
| Country |
Germany
|
| Decision no. |
2516/65
|
| Date |
23/05/1966
|
| Judges |
–
|
| Institution |
Commission (Plenary)
|
| Type |
Decision
|
| Outcome Art. 8 |
Inadmissible
|
| Reason |
Manifestly ill-founded; Prevention of disorder and crime
|
| Type of privacy |
Informational Privacy
|
| Keywords |
No court of fourth instance; positive obligation; criminal charges; prisoner; correspondence;
|
| Facts of the case |
Man is convicted on a number of accounts, such as aggression towards his (ex-)wife. He believes multiple of his Convention rights have been violated as the national authorities and courts, among others, did not do justice to his arguments, disregarded certain facts he found of utmost importance and in general, did him injustice.
|
| Analysis |
This case is interesting for three reasons.
1. First, the Commission stresses the formal stance that the Convention organs are not courts of fourth instance that will assess the facts of the case and their evaluation in national procedures anew: ‘it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention’
2. Second, although in later case law, the Court has been willing to accept that having (the possibility of) someone prosecuted for potentially criminal offenses may fall under the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR, such is explicitly denied in this case by the Commission: ‘whereas neither the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges and public prosecutors nor the right to have such proceedings brought against third persons is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention’.
3. Again, like the previous cases in which prisoners complain about an infringement on their right to correspondence, the Commission is largely waive such claims, stressing merely that such would surely have a legal basis and be necessary in a democratic society for one of the interests specified in Article 8 § 2.
|
| Documents |
Decision
|