Lexploria

Application No. 14261/88

by Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 13 July 1990, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President

J.A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 introduced on 1 August 1988

by Sinnadurai Shanmukanathan against the Federal Republic of Germany

and registered on 29 September 1988 under file No. 14261/88;

Having regard to the Commission's decision of 4 December 1989

to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to

invite them to present their observations in writing on the admissibility

and merits of the application;

Having regard to the Government's letter of 30 March 1990

enclosing the agreement reached between the parties;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka born in 1949 and

living at Talheim. He is represented by Rechtsanwalt N. Wingerter,

a lawyer practising at Heilbronn.

The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.

By a regulatory fine order (Bussgeldbescheid) of 3 October

1986 the Labour Exchange (Arbeitsamt) of Heilbronn imposed on the

applicant a regulatory fine (Geldbusse) for infringing Article 60

para. I no. 2 of the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch) I, in that, while

employed, he had drawn unemployment benefits.

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

(Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 7 April 1987 as date of the trial.

An interpreter was appointed for this hearing.

At the trial the applicant withdrew his objection and the

Court ruled that he had to bear the costs of the proceedings.

On 15 April 1987 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse)

fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 407.40 DM, of which

392.40 DM represented the interpreter's fee.

On 6 May 1987 the applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung)

against the bill of costs to the extent that it included the

interpreter's fee.

On 26 August 1987 the District Court dismissed the objection

as unfounded under No. 1904 of the Schedule to the Court Costs Act

(Kostenverzeichnis zum Gerichtskostengesetz); it held that this

provision prevailed over Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention.

The applicant's appeal (Beschwerde) alleging a violation of

Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention was dismissed by the Regional

Court (Landgericht) of Heilbronn on 2 March 1988. The Regional Court

held that No. 1904, second sentence, of the Schedule to the Court

Costs Act, as amended in 1980 following the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc

judgment of 28 November 1978 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 29), did

not cover regulatory proceedings and that it was for the legislator to

take the action required under Article 53 of the Convention following

the Court's subsequent interpretation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the

Convention in the Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984 (Eur. Court

H.R., Series A no. 73). In relation to Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the

Convention, as incorporated into domestic law in 1952, the Schedule,

as amended in 1980, prevailed, being both lex posterior and lex

specialis.

COMPLAINT

The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of

the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 1 August and registered on

29 September 1988.

On 4 December 1989 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to present before 23 February 1990 their observations in writing

on the admissibility and merits of the application.

By a letter of 21 February 1990 the Government informed the

Commission of the terms of a draft agreement which they had sent to

Rechtsanwalt Wingerter.

Under cover of their letter of 30 March 1989 the Government

submitted the agreement reached between the parties.

The agreement reads as follows:

(German original)

"V E R E I N B A R U N G

über das Individualbeschwerdeverfahren Nr. 14 261/88

Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland

zwischen

Herrn Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN, Hauptstrasse 50, 7129 Talheim,

vertreten durch Rechtsanwälte Norbert Wingerter, Volker Hohbach, Anke

Stiefel-Bechdolf, Christoph Haussmann in Heilbronn

und

der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vertreten durch Ministerialdirigent

Dr. Meyer-Ladewig, Bundesministerium der Justiz, 5300 Bonn 2

1. Dem Beschwerdeführer werden die in dem Bussgeldverfahren vor dem

Amtsgericht Heilbronn - 41 OWi 4452/86 - entstandenen und von ihm

gezahlten Dolmetscherkosten in Höhe von 392,40 DM zurückerstattet.

2. Die Bundesregierung zahlt dem Beschwerdeführer zur Abgeltung der

ihm im Erinnerungs- und Beschwerdeverfahren gegen diesen Kostenansatz

und anlässlich der Einlegung der Individualbeschwerde bei der Euro-

päischen Menschenrechtskommission entstandenen Kosten und Auslagen

einen Betrag von insgesamt 600,- DM (sechshundert Deutsche Mark).

3. Die Beträge zu 1. und 2. werden an den Verfahrensbevollmächtigten

des Beschwerdeführers, Rechtsanwälte Norbert Wingerter, Volker

Hohbach u.a. überwiesen.

4. Der Beschwerdeführer nimmt die Beschwerde hiermit zurück.

Bonn, den 21.2.1990 Heilbronn, den 21.2.90

gez. Meyer-Ladewig gez. Wingerter

(Ministerialdirigent (Rechtsanwalt Wingerter)"

Dr. Meyer-Ladewig)

English translation

"A G R E E M E N T

concerning the proceedings relating to individual Application No. 14261/88

Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN against the Federal Republic of Germany

between

Mr. Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN, Hauptstrasse 50, 7129 Talheim,

represented by MM. Norbert Wingerter, Volker Hohbach, Mrs. Anke

Stiefel-Bechdolf and Mr. Christoph Haussmann, lawyers in Heilbronn,

and

the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Dr. Meyer-Ladewig,

Ministerialdirigent, Federal Ministry of Justice, 5300 Bonn 2

1. Interpretation costs of 392.40 DM incurred in regulatory

proceedings - 41 OWi 4452/86 - before the Heilbronn District

Court and paid by the applicant shall be reimbursed.

2. In satisfaction of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant

in the objection and appeal proceedings to the above-mentioned bill

of costs and in the submission of the application to the European

Commission of Human Rights, the Federal Government shall pay to the

applicant the sum of 600 DM (six hundred Deutschmark).

3. The sums referred to in paragraphs 1. and 2. above shall be paid

to the applicant's representatives in the proceedings, MM. Norbert

Wingerter, Volker Hohbach and others.

4. The applicant hereby withdraws the application.

Bonn, 21.2.1990 Heilbronn, 21.2.90

(signed) Meyer-Ladewig (signed) Wingerter

(Ministerialdirigent (Rechtsanwalt Wingerter)"

Dr. Meyer-Ladewig)

The Government state that they have arranged for the above

sums to be paid to Rechtsanwalt Wingerter.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the parties have reached an

agreement on the applicant's claims and that the applicant wishes to

withdraw his application to the Commission. It concludes that the

applicant does not intend to pursue further his petition, the factual

basis of which has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 30

para. 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention.

Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general

character affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the

Convention, which require the further examination of the case by

virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

In this respect the Commission notes that, in view of the

Öztürk judgment, the Federal Republic of Germany has, by Article 2

para. 1 of an Act of 15 June 1989 (Gesetz zur Regelung des Geschäfts-

wertes bei land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Betriebsübergaben und zur

Änderung sonstiger kostenrechtlicher Vorschriften, BGBl I p. 1083),

amended No. 1904 of the Schedule to the Court Costs Act. Under the

amended provision interpretation costs incurred in regulatory

proceedings will only be claimed from the accused if the court finds

that he caused them unnecessarily.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)

Menu

SHANMUKANATHAN v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

SHANMUKANATHAN v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

LEXI