Lexploria

Application No. 14446/88

by R.R.

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 13 October 1988

by R.R. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 8

December 1988 under file No. 14446/88;

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 1951 and living

at B. He is represented by Rechtsanwalt N. Wingerter, a lawyer

practising at Heilbronn.

The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.

On 13 November 1986, in regulatory proceedings (Ordnungs-

widrigkeitsverfahren), the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn

fined the applicant for violation of the Act on Asylum Proceedings

(Asylverfahrensgesetz). It found that he had disregarded his

obligation to remain within the Heilbronn District (Landkreis), which

formed part of his limited permission to stay in the Federal Republic

of Germany. At the trial the applicant was assisted by an interpreter.

On 6 May 1988 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse) fixed

the costs to be paid by the applicant at 545.20 DM, of which 322.40 DM

represented the interpreter's fee.

On 10 May 1988 the applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung)

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

interpreter's fee.

On 22 Juni 1988 the District Court dismissed the objection as

unfounded.

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 29 July 1988. The Regional Court

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

Costs Act (Kostenverzeichnis zum Gerichtskostengesetz), as amended in

1980, prevailed as lex posterior over the Convention.

COMPLAINT

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

the Convention.

He submitted that a constitutional complaint (Verfassungs-

beschwerde) would not have been an effective remedy and referred in

this respect to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht) in the Akdogan case, as noted in the

Commission's decision on admissibility in that case (No. 11394/85,

Dec. 5.3.85, D.R. 46 p. 214).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 13 October and registered on

8 December 1989.

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 9 March 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. 14 446/88

R.R. gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland

zwischen

Herrn R.R., 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. Die dem Beschwerdeführer in dem Bussgeldverfahren vor dem

Amtsgericht Heilbronn - 32 OWi 8088/86 - mit Nachtrags-

Kostenrechnung vom 6. Mai 1988 in Rechnung gestellten

Dolmetscherkosten in Höhe von 322,40 DM werden erlassen.

Die vom Beschwerdeführer danach zuviel gezahlten 117,13 DM

werden ihm 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 Heilbronn, den

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. 14446/88

R.R. against the Federal Republic of Germany

between

Mr. R.R., 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 322.40 DM incurred by the applicant

in regulatory proceedings - 32 OWi 8088/86, supplementary bill

of costs of 6 May 1988 - before the Heilbronn District Court

shall be waived. The resulting excess sum of 177.13 DM 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, Heilbronn,

(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

R.R. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

R.R. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

LEXI