THE FACTS The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows: 1. The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1925 and living in Wetzen, near Lüneburg. He is represented by Dr. X., a barrister practising in Hamburg. 2. The present application concerns: - two decisions taken in the applicant's case by the Federal Inspection Office (Bundesprüfstelle) in Bonn under the Act Governing the Circulation of Publications Liable to Corrupt the Young (Gesetz über die Verbreitung jugendgefährdender Schriften) of 1953, and - subsequent proceedings before the Administrative courts relating to these decisions. 3. Article 1 of the above Act provides that publications liable to corrupt the young, including especially those of an indecent nature and such as to glorify war or incite to crime or race hatred, shall be entered in a list and their entry be notified to the public. The decision regarding the entry in the list rests with the Federal Inspection Office (Article 11). The members of this Office are appointed by the Federal Minister for Family and Youth Affairs and by the Governments of the Länder; they are not bound by instructions (Articles 9 and 10). As soon as the entry of a publication in the list has been notified, it may not be offered for sale, or made accessible, to any person under eighteen years of age (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 1 (4)), nor may it be sold, distributed or let by dealers outside business premises, door to door salesmen, at kiosks or other business premises which the customer is not in the habit of entering, through mail order firms or lending libraries (Article 4). 4. From the documents submitted by the applicant, it appears that he is the author of two novels entitled "But behind their doors they are naked" and "The sex plays of Mr. B" which, by decision of the Federal Inspection Office of .. October 1968 and .. June 1969, respectively, were entered in the list provided for by Article 1 of the above Act. 5. A complaint (Klage) against the decision of the Federal Inspection Office of .. October 1968 was filed by the applicant's publisher with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of Cologne on .. November 1968 and on .. August 1969 the applicant was, at his request, authorised by the Court to intervene (beigeladen) in these proceedings. On .. July 1969, a complaint against the decision of the Federal Inspection Office of .. June 1969 was filed by the applicant with the Administrative Court. By letter of 25 February 1971, from the Commission's Secretary, the applicant's lawyer was requested to inform the Commission as to the progress of the proceedings before the Administrative courts in the applicant's case. No reply to this letter has been received in the Secretariat. 6. The applicant also requested a suspension of the execution of the decisions of .. October 1968 and .. June 1969 pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Administrative Court on .. and .. July 1969, respectively, and, on appeal (Beschwerde), by the Administrative Court of Appeal (Oberverwaltungsgericht) of Münster on .. September 1969. 7. On .. October 1969 the applicant addressed a constitutional appeal (Verfassungsbeschwerde) to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) complaining of the above decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. He invoked Articles 1 (3), 2 to 5, 12, 14, 19, 92, 101 and 103 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany. This appeal was dismissed by a committee of three judges of the Court on .. October 1969. The Court stated that the appeal was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of other remedies, insofar as it attacked the decisions of the Federal Inspection Office, and manifestly ill-founded, insofar as the applicant sought a suspension of the execution of these decisions. 8. The applicant complains that the Federal Inspection Office, though not a Court but a body of experts, is empowered to take decisions which are executed at once and which remain in force pending their review by the Administrative Courts. He submits that this constitutes a violation of Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Convention. He also invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE LAW 1. The applicant has complained of the decisions of the Federal Inspection Office of .. October 1968 and .. June 1969. However, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law. In the present case the applicant, although invited to do so, failed to show that he has exhausted the remedies available to him under German law before the Administrative Courts. Moreover, an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal. It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and his application must in this respect be rejected under Article 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 27-3), of the Convention. 2. The applicant has further complained of the refusal by the Administrative Courts of his petitions for a suspension of the execution of the above decisions of the Federal Inspection Office. However, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, it is only the alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention that can be the subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals. In particular, no right to have the execution of an administrative decision suspended, while an appeal from this decision is pending before an Administrative Court, is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2). For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.