| Applicant name |
X.
|
| Applicant type |
Natural Person (prisoner)
|
| Country |
Germany
|
| Decision no. |
2366/64
|
| Date |
07/04/1967
|
| Judges |
–
|
| Institution |
Commission (Plenary)
|
| Type |
Decision
|
| Outcome Art. 8 |
Inadmissible
|
| Reason |
Ratione materiae
|
| Type of privacy |
Procedural Privacy
|
| Keywords |
Prisoner; right to appeal
|
| Facts of the case |
Political prisoner complains about a number of things, such as the inability to appeal with respect to his sentence, while it is unclear what precisely would be the privacy angle.
|
| Analysis |
Applicant complaints as to the lack of any possibility to appeal from decisions taken. However, the Commission observes that the Convention, under the terms of Article 1, guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention and that under Article 25 only the alleged violation of one of those rights and freedoms can lead to a claim before the ECmHR and the ECtHR. The Commission finds this claim inadmissible ratione materiae because no right to appeal on the appreciation of facts in a criminal case is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.
|
| Documents |
Decision
|