AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 14394/88
by Alfred VETTER
against the Federal Republic of Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 3 September 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 7 August 1988
by Alfred Vetter against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered
on 24 November 1988 under file No. 14394/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1949 and at present
detained in prison in Diez/Lahn.
He complains that on 23 March 1987 he was wrongly convicted by
the Frankenthal Regional Court (Landgericht) of theft and driving
without a licence and sentenced to thirty-two months' imprisonment. In
consequence of this judgment the applicant's conditional release on
26 May 1986 from preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) was
revoked on 13 November 1987.
The applicant's appeal on points of law (Revision) against the
judgment of 23 March 1987 was rejected by the Federal Court (Bundes-
gerichtshof) on 3 August 1987 as being ill-founded.
The appeal (Beschwerde) against the revocation of the
conditional release was rejected by the Regional Court on
13 November 1987 and a further appeal by the Koblenz Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht) on 18 December 1987.
A constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) against the
latter decision was rejected by a group of three judges of the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 4 February 1988 as
being clearly ill-founded.
The applicant submits that he was wrongly convicted because
witnesses for the defence were not heard and he was not allowed to put
questions to the witnesses for the prosecution in violation of
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. He further submits that his
preventive detention was wrongly ordered and that the conditions of
his detention amount to a violation of Articles 3 (Art. 3) and
5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.
The Commission has examined the applicant's separate
complaints as they have been submitted by him and finds that the
applicant has in no way substantiated his allegations. Even assuming
that domestic remedies were exhausted in all respects, the Commission
consequently concludes that the application does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention.
It follows that the application is as a whole manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy