1. The Commission deals with the question of what constitutes family life; it already adopts a quite broad interpretation, namely focussing on a ‘link’ between the applicant and his nephew and nice. However, it adopts a quite strict interpretation of what would constitute such a link: ‘whereas, in order that this provision should be applicable, it must be shown that such a link existed between the applicant and the two children as can be considered to establish family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8); whereas the Commission finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, the relationship between the uncle and nephew and niece cannot be said to amount to such a link; whereas in this respect it is particularly observed that the applicant and his brother’s children are not, and have not been, living together in the same household;’
2. The question of their religious education, which is different from which the applicant had envisioned, was dealt with under Article 9 ECHR and not Article 8 ECHR.
3. The complaint about the applicant’s brother being deported was not found admissible. ‘Whereas the applicant further alleges that in 1962 his brother Abad X. was deported to the Soviet Union against his will and in spite of the fact that having fought in the German army during the war, he had the status of a refugee; whereas the applicant complains that the criminal charges, which he laid in 1966 and 1967 against judges and other persons responsible for the alleged political deportation of his brother, were not proceeded with; whereas in this respect it is 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 the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against judges or other persons is not as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention .
4. ’The applicant complains about him having to pay alimony for his illegitimate child, which is declared inadmissible because he complains about factual errors made in that decision. ‘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;’
5. With respect to the criminal proceedings issued against the applicant, which he finds unjust, the Commission finds that he has not exhausted all domestic remedies.
6. Interestingly, the applicant also complains about the fact that he is unable to travel, because the government does not issue a travel document, and that the government is preparing his expulsion to Russia. The Commission stresses that these matters are simply not included under the scope of the Convention ratione materiae. In later jurisprudence, the Commission and the Court would certainly find that such might interfere with a person’s private or family life. In this case, however, the Commission only leaves room under the Convention to assess expulsion when Article 3 ECHR would be violated, which it finds no reason to accept in this case.