Lexploria

Application No. 10551/83

Cafer ZENGIN

against

the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 6 December 1988)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1 - 19) ...................................... 1

A. The application

(paras. 2 - 4) ............................... 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5 - 14) .............................. 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 15 - 19) ............................. 2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 20 - 39) ..................................... 3

A. The particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 20 - 25) ............................. 3

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 26 - 39) ............................. 5

1. Act on Regulatory Offences

(paras. 26 - 36) .......................... 5

2. Road Traffic fines

(paras. 37 - 39) .......................... 7

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

(paras. 40 - 49) ..................................... 8

A. The applicant

(paras. 40 - 43) ............................. 8

B. The Government

(paras. 44 - 49) ............................. 8

IV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 50 - 67) ..................................... 10

A. Point at issue

(para. 50) ................................... 10

B. Applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e)

of the Convention

(paras. 51 - 54) ............................. 10

C. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e)

(paras. 55 - 66) ............................. 10

D. Conclusion

(para. 67) ................................... 12

APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................ 13

APPENDIX II : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ............. 14

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1946 and living at

Nordheim (Federal Republic of Germany). He was represented before

the Commission by Mr. N. Wingerter, a lawyer practising in Heilbronn.

3. The application is directed against the Federal Republic of

Germany. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents,

Mrs. I. Maier, Ministerialdirigentin, succeeded by Mr. J. Meyer-Ladewig,

Ministerialdirigent, both of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

4. The applicant complains that, in proceedings concerning a

regulatory offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit), he was ordered to pay the

fee of the interpreter amounting to 53 DM. He invokes Article 6

para. 3 (e) of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 11 January 1983 and

registered on 12 September 1983.

6. On 8 May 1985 the Commission decided in accordance with

Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite them to state

before 28 June 1985 whether or not, having regard to the judgment of

the European Court of 21 February 1984 in the Öztürk case (Eur. Court

H.R., Series A no. 73), they would wish to submit written observations

on the admissibility and merits of the present application and, in the

affirmative, to submit such observations before 2 August 1985.

7. The Government replied that they wished to submit

observations. Following an extension of the time-limit their

observations of 20 September were received on 24 September 1985.

The applicant's reply of 3 October was received on 7 October 1985.

The Government's further submissions of 7 November arrived on

13 November 1985, the applicant's reply of 27 February on 3 March 1986.

8. On 4 March 1986 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

9. On 26 and 27 March 1986 the text of this decision was

communicated to the parties who were invited to submit any additional

observations on the merits by 16 May 1986.

10. The Government's observations of 20 June were received

on 27 June 1986, the applicant's reply of 28 January arrived on

30 January 1987.

11. The Commission considered the parties' submissions on

8 July 1987.

12. On 11 December 1987 the Commission resumed its examination of

the application in the light of the judgment given by the Court in the

Lutz case on 25 August 1987 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 123 - A).

13. On 6 December 1988 the Commission took their final vote on the

case.

14. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention, placed itself

at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the case. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a

settlement can be reached.

C. The present Report

15. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes in plenary session, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

16. The text of this Report was adopted on 6 December 1988 and

is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of

Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

17. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1

of the Convention, is:

i) to establish the facts, and

ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found

disclose a breach by the State concerned of its

obligations under the Convention.

18. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before

the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.

19. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with

the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the case

20. On 9 October 1981, in Heilbronn, the applicant caused an

accident with his motor vehicle which resulted in approximately

5,000 DM worth of damage to the other vehicle.

21. By a regulatory fine order (Bussgeldbescheid) of 9 February 1982

the Office of Public Order (Amt für öffentliche Ordnung) of the city

of Heilbronn imposed on the applicant a regulatory fine (Geldbusse) of

100 DM for careless driving (Ausserachtlassung der nötigen Vorsicht)

infringing Articles 1 para. 2 and 49 of the Road Traffic Regulations

(Strassenverkehrsordnung). This order was issued under Article 17 of

the Regulatory Offences Act (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten). The

applicant was also ordered to pay a fee (Gebühr) of 10 DM and expenses

(Auslagen) of the Office of 4 DM.

22. On the applicant's objection (Einspruch) the District Court

(Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 7 May 1982, 1.30 pm, as date and time

of the trial. At counsel's request, filed in reply to a question from

the Court, an interpreter was appointed for this hearing.

Immediately before the hearing the applicant, having discussed

the case with counsel, withdrew the objection. It is disputed between

the parties whether, at the above discussion, the applicant and his

lawyer were assisted by the interpreter. The Court then ruled that

the applicant had to bear the further costs of the proceedings and his

own expenses.

23. On 26 May 1982 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse)

fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 120.20 DM, of which

53 DM represented interpreter's fees.

24. The applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung) against the bill

of costs to the extent that it included the interpreter's fee. He

relied on Article 6 of the Convention and referred to the Commission's

decision of 15 December 1981 admitting Application No. 8544/79 (Öztürk

v. the Federal Republic of Germany, D.R. 26 p. 55).

The District Court dismissed the objection on 27 October 1982

on the ground that regulatory fine proceedings were administrative

proceedings to which Article 6 of the Convention did not apply.

25. On 10 November 1982 counsel submitted the Commission's Report

of 12 May 1982 in the Öztürk case and requested the District Court to

reconsider its decision.

The District Court ruled on 25 November 1982 that counsel's

submissions did not call for an amendment of the Court's ruling of

27 October 1982 since a final decision of the European Court of Human

Rights had not yet been delivered.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Act on Regulatory Offences

26. The subject of "regulatory offences" is governed by the Act

of 24 May 1968 on Regulatory Offences (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten),

in its version of 1 January 1975 ("the 1968/1975 Act"). The purpose

of this legislation was to remove petty offences from the sphere of

the criminal law. Included in this category were road traffic

contraventions. Commission of such contraventions had given rise to

liability to a fine (Geldstrafe) or imprisonment (Haft). Section 3 (6)

of the Introductory Act of 24 May 1968 (Einführungsgesetz zum Gesetz

über Ordnungswidrigkeiten) classified them as "Ordnungswidrigkeiten"

and henceforth made them punishable only by fines (Geldbussen) not

deemed to be criminal by the legislature.

a) General provisions

27. Section 1 (1) of the 1968/1975 Act defines a "regulatory

offence" as an unlawful and reprehensible act, contravening a legal

provision which makes offenders liable to a fine. The fine cannot be

less than DM 5 or, as a general rule, more than DM 1,000 (Section 17 (1)).

The amount of the fine is fixed in each case by reference to the

seriousness of the offence, the degree of misconduct attributable to

the offender and, save for minor offences, the offender's financial

circumstances (Section 17 (3)).

b) Prosecuting authorities

28. "Regulatory offences" are to be dealt with by the

administrative authorities designated by law, save insofar as the

1968/1975 Act confers the power of prosecution of such offences on the

public prosecutor and the trial and punishment of them on the courts

(Sections 35 and 36).

c) Procedure in general

29. Subject to the exceptions laid down in the 1968/1975 Act, the

provisions of the ordinary law governing criminal procedure - in

particular the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicature Act (Gerichts-

verfassungsgesetz) and the Juvenile Courts Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz)

- are applicable by analogy to the procedure in respect of "regulatory

offences" (Section 46 (1)). The prosecuting authorities have the same

rights and duties as the public prosecutor in a criminal matter unless

the 1968/1975 Act itself states otherwise (Section 46 (2)).

Nevertheless, a number of measures permissibile in criminal matters

cannot be ordered in respect of "regulatory offences", notably arrest

and interim police custody (vorläufige Festnahme) (Section 46 (3)).

30. The prosecution of "regulatory offences" lies within the

discretion (pflichtgemässiges Ermessen) of the competent authority,

which may terminate the prosecution at any time while the case is

pending before it (Section 47 (1)). Once the case has been brought

before a court, power to direct a stay of proceedings rests with the

court; any such decision requires the agreement of the public

prosecutor and is final (Section 47 (2)).

d) Administrative decision imposing a fine

31. Save insofar as the 1968/1975 Act provides otherwise, a

"regulatory offence" is punishable by an administrative decision

imposing a fine (Bussgeldbescheid; Section 65).

The person concerned may lodge an objection within a period

which on 1 April 1987 was increased from one week to two weeks

(Section 67). Unless they withdraw their decision, the administrative

authorities will then forward the file to the public prosecutor, who

will submit it to the competent District Court and thereupon assume

the function of prosecuting authority (Sections 68 and 69).

e) Judicial stage of the procedure

32. Under Section 71, if the District Court finds the objection

admissible (Section 70) it will, unless the 1968/1975 Act states

otherwise, examine the objection in accordance with the provisions

applicable to an objection against an order of summary punishment

(Strafbefehl): in principle, it will hold a hearing and deliver a

judgment which may impose a heavier sentence (Article 411 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure). The person concerned has the option of

attending the hearing but is not bound to do so unless the District

Court so directs (Section 73 (1) and (2)); he may be represented by a

lawyer (Section 73 (4)).

f) Enforcement of decisions imposing a fine

33. A decision imposing a fine is enforceable once it has become

final (Sections 89 and 84). If, without having established his

inability to pay, the person concerned has not paid the fine due in

time, the court may, at the request of the administrative authorities

or, where the fine was imposed by a court decision, of its own motion,

order coercive imprisonment (Erzwingungshaft - Section 96 (1)). The

resultant detention does not replace payment of the fine in the manner

of an "Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe" under the criminal law, but is intended to

compel payment. The period of detention may not exceed six weeks for

one fine and three months for several fines (Section 96 (3)).

Implementation of the detention order is governed, inter alia, by the

Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 97).

g) Costs

34. As far as the costs of the administrative procedure are

concerned, the competent authorities apply by analogy certain

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 105).

35. Under Section 109, the person concerned has to bear the costs

of the court proceedings if he withdraws his objection or if the

competent court rejects it.

The costs in question are made up of the expenses and fees of

the Treasury (Article 464 (a) para. 1, first sentence, of the Code of

Criminal Procedure). These fees and expenses are listed in the Court

Costs Act (Gerichtskostengesetz) which in turn refers, inter alia, to

the Witnesses and Experts (Expenses) Act (Gesetz über die

Entschädigung von Zeugen und Sachverständigen). Section 17

sub-section 2 of the last-mentioned Act provides that "for the

purposes of compensation, interpreters shall be treated as experts".

Interpretation costs (Dolmetscherkosten) are thus included in

the costs of judicial proceedings. However, as far as criminal

proceedings - and criminal proceedings alone - are concerned, the

German legislature amended the schedule (Kostenverzeichnis) to the

Court Costs Act following the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of

28 November 1978 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 29). According to

no. 1904 in this schedule, henceforth no charge is to be made for "the

sums due to interpreters and translators engaged in criminal

proceedings in order to translate, for an accused who is deaf or dumb

or not conversant with the German language, the statements or

documents which the accused needs to understand for his defence" (Act

of 18 August 1980).

36. Under the terms of Section 109 of the 1968/1975 Act, the

question of payment of the costs of the proceedings, including the

interpretation costs, only arises once the withdrawal or dismissal of

the objection has become final. The person concerned may never be

required to make an advance payment in respect of the costs concerned.

2. Road traffic fines

37. The Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsgesetz), the Road

Traffic Regulations and the Road Traffic Licence and Vehicle

Conformity Regulations (Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung) contain

lists of "regulatory offences" punishable by a fine (Section 24 of the

Road Traffic Act).

Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act provides:

"1. It shall be a 'regulatory offence' wilfully or

negligently to contravene a provision in a statutory

instrument (Rechtsverordnung) made pursuant to

Section 6 (1) or in an order (Anordnung) made pursuant

to such a statutory instrument if the statutory

instrument concerned refers to the present provision ...

in respect of a given offence. Such reference shall

not be required where the provision of the statutory

instrument was made before 1 January 1969.

2. A 'regulatory offence' is punishable by a fine."

The Road Traffic Regulations, which were applied in the

present case, were contained in one of the statutory instruments

issued under Section 6 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

38. Section 1 para. 2 of the Road Traffic Regulations provides:

"Every road user shall behave in such a manner as neither

to cause damage to nor to endanger any other road user,

nor to obstruct or cause nuisance to any other road user

more than is unavoidable in the circumstances."

39. Section 49 para. 1 of the Road Traffic Regulations provides:

"A 'regulatory offence' within the meaning of Section 24

of the Road Traffic Act is committed by anyone who

deliberately or negligently contravenes any provision

relating to:

1. The general behaviour of road users under Section 1

para. 2, ...."

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The applicant

1. As to fact

40. The applicant submits that, at the pre-trial conversation with

his lawyer on 7 May 1982, he was assisted by the interpreter.

2. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention

41. The applicant submits that proceedings concerning regulatory

offences are criminal proceedings covered by Article 6 of the

Convention.

3. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention

42. In the applicant's view, the present case cannot be

distinguished from the the Öztürk case (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of

21 February 1984, Series A no. 73), where the objection against the

regulatory fine was not withdrawn before, but only during the trial.

The present applicant could not ascertain the chances of his

objection until immediately before the trial, when he had a

conversation with his lawyer, assisted by the interpreter. He then

withdrew the objection at once in order to save further costs. The

bill of costs did not state that he had to pay the fee of the

interpreter because of the late withdrawal of the objection.

The applicant concedes that the interpreter did not act

before the Court but he considers that his assistance at the pre-trial

conversation with counsel was also covered by Article 6 para. 3 (e) and

relies in this respect on the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of

28 November 1978 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 29, p. 20 para. 48).

43. The applicant concludes that the decision of the District

Court, by which he was ordered to pay the interpreter's fee, violated

Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.

B. The Government

1. As to fact

44. The Government concede that the interpreter was present before

the court hearing on 7 May 1982, but they contest that he assisted the

applicant and his lawyer in their pre-trial conversation.

2. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention

45. The Government submit that Article 6 does not apply to

regulatory proceedings. Under the law of the Federal Republic of

Germany regulatory offences are not criminal but administrative

matters. Sanctions in the form of regulatory fines are imposed by the

administrative authorities.

3. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention

46. The Government submit that Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the

Convention is intended to secure fair criminal proceedings also for

the foreigner who does not understand the language used in court, and

to avoid any procedural disadvantage arising from this circumstance.

This principle was observed in the present case, while the same cannot

be said of the practice in other High Contracting States. The Court

asked the applicant to state whether an interpreter was required for

the hearing and an interpreter was made available following counsel's

request.

47. In the Government's view, however, Article 6 para. 3 (e)

cannot be interpreted as obliging the Contracting States to pay the

fee of an appointed interpreter where an objection is withdrawn

immediately before the trial so that the appointment of the

interpreter cannot be cancelled in time. It must be expected of

the applicant and his counsel that - if judicial control has been

requested and a hearing has been fixed - they examine in time the

question of whether they wish to uphold the objection or to withdraw

it, thereby avoiding undue administrative time and effort. This the

defence failed to do in the present case. Section 109 of the

Regulatory Offences Act (para. 35 above) thus provides that the

defendant has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he

withdraws his objection to the regulatory fine order.

The Government argue that costs caused by attributable delays

and similar circumstances have to be borne by the person causing them.

This also applies to interpreter's fees. It would amount to a

preferential treatment of the foreign national, not covered by the

purpose of Article 6 para. 3 (e), were one to free him from such costs

as well and make the tax-payer liable for them. Particularly in view

of the budgetary problems facing the State and the priorities to be

established by the organs of justice in suppressing serious crime and

in their other tasks, this is not justified and cannot be deduced from

the Convention.

48. With regard to the pre-trial conversation between the

applicant and his counsel and the alleged assistance by the

interpreter, the Government also observe that Article 6 para. 3 (e)

applies only to the relations between the accused and his defence

counsel (No. 6185/73, Dec. 29.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 68).

49. The Government conclude that there has been no violation of

Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.

IV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Point at issue

50. The issue to be determined in the present application is

whether the obligation imposed on the applicant to pay the

interpreter's fee violated Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the

Convention.

B. Applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention

51. Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention provides:

"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the

following minimum rights:

...

e. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he

cannot understand or speak the language used in court."

52. The Commission notes that the applicant had to answer for a

breach of the Road Traffic Regulations (see paras. 21 and 37 - 39 above).

In German law this was not a criminal offence (Straftat) but a

"regulatory offence" ("Ordnungswidrigkeit"). However, this

classification is not decisive for the purposes of the Convention.

53. The Commission here recalls that the issue of the

applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention to

proceedings concerning "regulatory offences" was determined in the

Öztürk case. In that case the Court held that Mr. Öztürk, who

likewise had to answer for a breach of the Road Traffic Regulations,

was "charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 6

para. 3 (Art. 6-3) (Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984,

Series A no. 73, p. 21 para. 54). This view has in the meanwhile

been confirmed by the Court in the Lutz case (Eur. Court H.R.,

Lutz judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123 - A, p. 22 para. 53)

and by the Commission in the Akdogan case (Akdogan v. Federal Republic

of Germany, Comm. Report 5.7.88, para. 52).

54. The Commission therefore finds that Article 6 para. 3 (e)

(Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the present case.

C. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e)

55. The right protected by Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of

the Convention entails, for anyone who cannot speak or understand the

language used in court, the right to receive the free assistance of an

interpreter, without the payment of the costs thereby incurred being

claimed back from him subsequently (Eur. Court H.R., Luedicke,

Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, p. 19

para. 46).

56. Interpretation costs were imposed on the present applicant by

the District Court's bill of costs of 26 May 1982 (para. 23 above).

57. It is disputed between the parties whether the present case,

in which the objection against the regulatory fine order was withdrawn

immediately before the trial, can for the purposes of Article 6

para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) be distinguished from the Öztürk case, in which the

objection was only withdrawn in the course of the trial.

58. The applicant concedes that the interpreter did not act at the

hearing. He states that the interpreter assisted at the pre-trial

conversation between the applicant and his counsel and argues that

such assistance is also covered by Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e).

59. The Government concede that the interpreter was present before

the court hearing, but they contest that he assisted the applicant and

his lawyer at their pre-trial conversation. In any case, in the

Government's view Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) applies only to

the relations between the accused and the judge and does not cover

relations between the accused and his defence counsel.

60. The Commission has not found it necessary to investigate

whether the interpreter assisted at the pre-trial conversation and, if

so, to determine the applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art.

6-3-e) to that stage of criminal proceedings.

61. It notes that the interpreter was appointed for the trial and

that the applicant was charged with his fees under that appointment.

To this extent the circumstances are clearly the same as in the Öztürk

case.

62. Moreover, the cost order concerning the interpreter's fees in

the present case cannot, in the Commission's view, be justified under

Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) on the ground that the applicant

withdrew his objection against the regulatory fine order. In the

Öztürk case the objection against the regulatory fine order was also

withdrawn and the Commission and the Court nevertheless found a

violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e).

63. It is true that, in the Öztürk case, the objection was only

withdrawn at the trial, while in the present case the withdrawal

of the objection took place before the trial. But in the

Commission's view this difference in time does not justify a different

conclusion under Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e). The Commission

here notes that the immediate withdrawal of the objection after the

pre-trial conversation served the interests of procedural economy.

64. Different considerations may apply where the accused fails to

appear and where it therefore becomes necessary to appoint the

interpreter a second time for a new hearing, cf. Application

No. 11311/84, Fedele v. Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 9.12.87, not

yet published. However, this situation is not before the Commission

in the present case.

65. It follows that this case, in which the objection against the

regulatory fine was withdrawn immediately before the trial, cannot be

distinguished from the Öztürk case, in which it was only withdrawn at

the trial.

66. The District Court's bill of costs therefore violated the

applicant's right under Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e), insofar as

he was ordered to pay the fee of the interpreter.

D. Conclusion

67. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been a

violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

&_APPENDIX I&S

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

___________________________________________________________________

11 January 1983 Introduction of the application

12 September 1983 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

8 May 1985 Commission's decision to communicate

the application to the respondent

Government

20 September 1985 Government's observations

3 October 1985 Applicant's reply

7 November 1985 Government's further submissions

27 February 1986 Applicant's reply

4 March 1986 Decision to declare the application

admissible

Examination of the merits

20 June 1986 Government's observations

14 July 1986 Commission's deliberations

10 December 1986 Commission's deliberations

28 January 1987 Applicant's reply to Government's

observations

11 December 1987 Deliberations resumed in the light of

Lutz judgment of 25 August 1987

8 October 1988 Consideration of state of proceedings

6 December 1988 Commission's deliberations and final

votes

6 December 1988 Adoption of the Report

Menu

ZENGIN v. GERMANY

ZENGIN v. GERMANY

LEXI