C O U N C I L  O F  E U R O P E

                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

                         AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                         Application No. 12240/86
                         by Franz Josef GLASL
                         against Austria

       The european Commission of Human rights sitting in private
on 13 May 1988, the following members being present:

MM.J.A.FROWEIN,Acting President
S.TRECHSEL
F.ERMACORA
G.SPERDUTI
E.BUSUTTIL
A.S.GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C.SOYER
H.G.SCHERMERS
H.DANELIUS
G.BATLINER
H.VANDENBERGHE
Mrs.G.H.THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM.F.MARTINEZ
C.L.ROZAKIS
Mrs.J.LIDDY

Mr.JRAYMOND,Deputy 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 introtuced on 17 November 1985
by Franz Josef Glasl against Austria and registered on 27 June 1986 under
file No. 12240/86;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having delibarated;

      Decides as follows:
                12240/86                     - 2 -

      The applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1957, is an economist
resident in karnabrunn in Austria.

      The applicant was convicted by the Korneuburg District Court
(Bezirksgericht) on 4 September 1984 to 20 daily rates of 50-.AS as he
had not complied with an order of the military authorities calling him
up to military service. This decision obtained legal force on 24
September 1984. The applicant filed various requests and complaints,
inter alia with the constituional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof)
and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) concerning
mainly his reinstitution into the previous proceedings. The sentence
was converted to imprisonment lasting from 20 to 30 August 1987. The
applicant the filed further complaints concerning inter alia the
conditions of detention.

      Other proceedings originated in elections for the Ernstbrunn
Municipal council (Gemeinderat) in respect of which in 1985 he ran as
a candidate and obtained 2 of 2015 votes. His various complaints
against the elections and several election laws were dismissed inter
alia by the Constitutional Court on 22 November 1985.

      In 1985 the applicant was again called up for military
service. when he did not comply, proceedings under military penal law
were instituted against him. On 19 February 1987 his request for
legal aid was rejected by the Korneuburg District Court on the grounds
that S. 41 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure excludes legal
aid in District Court proceedings. His appeal against this decision
was dismissed by the Korneuburg Regional court (Kreisgericht) on 2
March 1987. On 5 March 1987, the Korneuburg District Court convicted
and sentenced the applicant to 10 days' conditional imprionment. On
13 November 1987 the Korneuburg Regional Court quashed the decision
and acquitted the applicant.

      The applicant complains of these and other proceedings
alleging their unfairness and incorrect outcome. He also appears to
complain of the decision of 19 February 1987 which refused him legal
aid. The applicant relies on Articles 1-18 and 60 of the Convention
and on all provisions of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4.

      Insofar as the applicant complains, apparently under Article
6 para. 3(c), that on 19 February 1987 he was not granted legal aid
in the proceedings insituted against him under military penal law,
the commission notes that the applicant was convicted on 5 march 1987,
though on 13 November 1987 ,the Korneuburg Regional court acquitted him
of the offences. Hence, in this respect the applicant can no longer
claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the
Convention, and this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the
Convention. 

      Insofar as the applicant complains of the other proceedings in
which he has been involved, and their outcome, the Commission has
examined the applicant's complaints as they have been submitted by
him.  However, after considering these complaints as a whole, the
Commission finds that they do not either disclose any appearence of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
                              - 3 -

12240/86

      It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the commission

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
      _____________________________________

Deputy Secretary to the commission    Acting President to the Commission

 (J. RAYMOND)                                 (J.A. FROWWEIN)

mainfestly illfounded=offensichtlich unbegruendet