Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural Person (prisoner)
Country Germany
Decision no. 2566/65
Date 06/02/1967
Institution Commission (Plenary)
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason Manifestly ill-founded; Prevention of crime
Type of privacy Bodily privacy; informational privacy
Keywords Homosexuality; right of correspondence; prisoner; not a court of fourth instance
Facts of the case Man is convicted of homosexual offences.
Analysis A short case, which is interesting nevertheless for three reasons:

1. The Commission emphasizes yet again that it is not a court of fourth instance, stressing that ‘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; [] and whereas there is no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of; whereas it follows that this part of the Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention’.
2. Apparently, being convicted for homosexuality was not considered in any way a violation of the right to privacy.
3. The applicant also complaint of the fact that a letter he tried to send was blocked. This, the Commission found legitimate in light of the prevention of crime because the letter was intended to influence a witness to his trial.

Documents Decision