Search
document

Document text Analytics

LUEDICKE, BELKACEM AND KOÇ AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 6210/73;6877/75;7132/75 • ECHR ID: 001-55413

Document date: March 23, 1983

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

LUEDICKE, BELKACEM AND KOÇ AGAINST GERMANY

Doc ref: 6210/73;6877/75;7132/75 • ECHR ID: 001-55413

Document date: March 23, 1983

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in the case of "Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç", delivered on

28 November 1978 and 10 March 1980 and transmitted the same days to

the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case had its origin in three applications against

the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the European Commission of

Human Rights by Mr Gerhard W. Luedicke, a United Kingdom citizen,

Mr Mohammed Belkacem, an Algerian citizen and Mr Arif Koç, a Turkish

citizen, which the Commission joined and in which the applicants

claimed to be victims of a violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.e,

(art. 6-3-e) of the Convention in that they had been ordered by the

German courts to bear interpretation costs and Mr Luedicke and

Mr Belkacem also alleged discrimination by reason of the fact that a

foreigner not speaking German was in a less favourable position than a

German person;

Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the

Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and by the European

Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas, in its judgment of 28 November 1978, the Court

Decides unanimously not to strike the case out of its list as far

as the applicant Koç is concerned;

Holds unanimously that there has been a breach of Article 6

paragraph 3.e (art. 6-3-e), of the Convention;

Holds unanimously that it is not necessary also to examine the

case under Article 14 (art. 14);

Holds unanimously that the Federal Republic of Germany must

reimburse Mr Luedicke for the interpretation costs that he was

obliged to pay;

Holds unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50

(art. 50) is not ready for decision as regards the applicant' other

claims; accordingly,

a. reserves the said question in relation to those claims;

b. invites those appearing before the Court to notify it, within

three months from the delivery of this judgment, of any settlement at

which the Government and the applicants may have arrived in connection

therewith;

c. reserves the further procedure to be followed on this

question;

Whereas in its judgment of 10 March 1980, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the case out of its list as regards the

applicants Luedicke and Koç;

Rejects the request made in the name of the applicant Belkacem;

Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention";

Having invited the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to

inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the

judgments, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53)

of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of

Ministers, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany informed

the Committee of Ministers of measures taken in consequence of the

judgment of 28 November 1978 which information appears in the appendix

to this resolution;

Having taken note of the above-mentioned information and being aware

of the current position under the laws of the Federal Republic of

Germany in the sector affected by the Court's judgments,

Declares that it has exercised its function under Article 54 (art. 54)

of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (83) 4

Information provided by the Government of the

Federal Republic of Germany during the

examination of the case of "Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç"

before the Committee of Ministers

On 19 January 1979 the Minister of Justice of Land North

Rhine-Westphalia reimbursed the Command Legal Aid Section of the

British Army in Bielefeld, which had represented the applicant

Leudicke, the sum of 201.40 DM for transmission to the applicant. The

headquarters of the United Kingdom Land Forces confirmed by letter

dated 2 October 1979 to the European Commission of Human Rights that

the Luedicke case was regarded as settled.

The Federal Republic of Germany and the counsel of applicant Koç reached

agreement. By letter of 19 June 1979, the applicant's counsel

confirmed that his client's claim had been satisfied by the payment of

the sum of 2 064.30 DM. By letter of 9 July 1979 he acknowledged

receipt of the payment.

The Federal Government and the Secretary to the Commission transmitted

the relevant documents to the Court. The Court verified the equitable

nature of these agreements and, having regard to the opinion

expressed by the Commission's delegates, stated that it entertained no

doubts on the matter. Accordingly the Court struck the case out of

its list as regards these two applicants (judgment of 10 March 1980,

paragraph 13).

As regards the applicant Belkacem, the relevant Berlin authorities

first suspended and then, on 15 February 1979, cancelled recovery of

the interpretation costs. Since the applicant Belkacem had the

benefit of free legal aid both before the Commission and, after

reference of the case to the Court, in his relations with the

delegates, he bore no costs himself and suffered no loss capable of

being compensated under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Court held that the additional fees of 2 171.33 DM

claimed by Mr. Belkacem's lawyer were not well-founded and rejected

the request (judgment of 10 March 1980, paragraphs 14-16).

Since the Court itself examined the measures taken by the Government

of the Federal Republic of Germany in consequence of the judgment of

28 November 1978 and held that the three cases are settled, the

Federal Government considered that it had fulfilled its duties under

Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant