| Applicant name | BAADER, MEINS, MEINHOF and GRUNDMANN |
| Applicant type | Natural person (prisoner) |
| Country | Germany |
| Decision no. | 6166/73 |
| Date | 30/05/1975 |
| Judges | –
|
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | Manifestly ill-founded (prevention disorder or crime) |
| Type of privacy | Bodily privacy; informational privacy; relational privacy |
| Keywords | Prisoners’ freedoms curtailed; locus standi after death; non-effective domestic remedies; double even if |
| Facts of the case | Freedoms of prisoners curtailed; prisoners are part of the very dangerous Baader-Meinhoff group/the Rote Armee Fraktion. |
| Analysis | There are strict limitations on the prisoners’ rights, but with good reason, so the Commission finds, pointing both the fact that they are charged with terrorist attacks and because they have attempted to flee prison facilities before. Consequently, the limitations are necessary in light of the prevention of disorder or crime. The referrence to this ground is interesting. Normally, the prevention of disorder or crime is used for the lightest forms of crime, such as petty theft, while public safety and national security are used for the more weighty cases. Here, the Commission nevertheless refers to the former limitation ground. The case is interesting for two points, with respect to which the Commission uses an ‘even if’ reasoning. First, one of the applicants has died. Can his relatives pursue the case on his behalf? The Commission does not exclude that, but since the other two applicants had simmilar complaints, it does not need to resolve this matter. Second, it doubts whether the domestic remedies were effective to the applicants, but again, does not resolve this matter. |
| Documents | Decision |