THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1943 and living in B. where he is a student of the Free University. He is represented by Messrs. E., M. and S., lawyers practising in B.. By order (Strafbefehl) of 27 March 1969 the District Court (Amtsgericht ) T. in B. imposed a summary penalty of two months imprisonment on the applicant. According to the Court's findings the applicant had disturbed the domestic peace and security (Hausfriedensbruch) by breaking, with other students, into the office of the President (Rektor) of the University. The Court decided that the execution of the penalty should be suspended on probation. The order was given without an oral hearing on request of the Public Prosecutor and served on the applicant on 9 April 1969 by way of deposition at the post office. According to the German Code of Criminal Procedure an appeal (Einspruch) against an order inflicting a summary penalty has to be lodged within a week after service. The applicant lodged an appeal by letter of 16 April 1969 which was received by the Court one day later. His defence counsel filed a brief on 18 April 1969, which arrived on 19 April 1969, requesting the Court to declare the appeal admissible although out of time (Wiedereinsetzungsgesuch). They stated that the applicant was on vacation in the Black Forest from 6 March to 14 April 1969 and had made no arrangement to have his mail delivered there. When he came home to B. and found the notice informing him of the deposition of the Court order at the post office he thought the document would be considered to have been served on him on the day when he would pick it up at the post office. Furthermore he had read an article in a newspaper about a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) according to which a person who unknowingly failed to lodge an appeal against a summary penalty which was served on him while he was on vacation should be given permission to lodge the appeal out of time within a week after his return. By decision of .. May 1969, the District Court T. in B. refused to grant the applicant permission to lodge his appeal out of time. The Court pointed out that according to Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure such permission can only be granted if the applicant was prevented from lodging the appeal in time by circumstances beyond his control. It found that such circumstances did not exist in the case of the applicant, because he received notice of the deposition of the court order within the time-limit allowed and could have lodged the appeal in time on 15 April 1969. The Court found that the applicant was not excused by the newspaper report on a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, because, according to this decision, the permission to lodge an appeal out of time is to be given only if the applicant gets notice of the deposition of the order imposing a penalty judgment on him after the delay for the appeal has elapsed. The applicant made a further appeal (sofortige Beschwerde) against the decision of the District Court alleging a violation of his right to be heard and to defend his case in court (rechtliches Gehör). He referred to another decision of the Federal Constitutional Court according to which the courts should not be too strict in deciding whether or not an applicant had valid excuses for having failed to lodge an appeal against an order inflicting a summary penalty, on time. However, the Regional Court (Landgericht) in B. rejected this appeal on .. July 1969, stating that the grounds given in the District Court's decision were correct. The applicant alleges that the refusal of the B. courts to admit his appeal against the order of 27 March 1969 violates Article 6 (1) and (3) (b) of the Convention. He points out that the order inflicting a summary penalty upon him was given without an oral hearing. He is of the opinion that he had offered reasonable excuses for his failure to lodge the appeal in time because laymen generally believe that a service is not effected solely by deposition at the post office, but by the fact that the person to whom the deposited letter is addressed picks it up at the post office. Furthermore, he maintains that the newspaper report concerning the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, could have been interpreted by laymen to the effect that, in each case where a person absent on vacation has been served, by way of deposition at the post office, an order inflicting a summary penalty, the delay for lodging an appeal against such an order takes effect from the day on which the person returns home. He points out that the strict and formalistic attitude of the B. courts leads to unreasonable consequences insofar as persons who come home from vacation on the last day of the periods during which the appeal has to be lodged, have to file the appeal immediately or are otherwise deprived of a fair trial, while others who come home later have a whole week to consider whether or not to apply for permission to lodge the appeal out of time. THE LAW Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he could not defend his case in court because the summary penalty was imposed on him without an oral hearing and because his appeal was not admitted by the courts, the Commission first notes that according to German law an accused person is never obliged to accept an order imposing a summary penalty on him since he can lodge an appeal asking what the same court which has fixed the summary penalty should examine his case in a normal trial with an oral hearing; Whereas it follows that such summary penalty proceedings do not conflict with Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention; Whereas, furthermore, the Commission notes that, according to Article 163 (a), paragraph (1), of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution has always to examine the accused before moving for an order imposing summary penalty; whereas it is thereby guaranteed that an accused is never taken by surprise; Whereas the Commission finds that in the present case the refusal of the courts to admit the applicant's appeal is the fault of the applicant himself since, although he must have known of the criminal proceedings instituted against him, he had made no arrangements to have his mail forwarded to him and he had failed to lodge the appeal immediately after he had collected from the post office the letter containing the court order; whereas, under these circumstances, an examination of the case does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and, in particular, in Article 6 (1) and (3) (b) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-b) of the Convention; Whereas it follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention; Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE