Search
document

Document text Analytics

AKDOGAN v. GERMANYIV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 5, 1988

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

AKDOGAN v. GERMANYIV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 5, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

IV. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Point at issue

46. 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. The applicant's status as a "victim"

47. Throughout the proceedings the Government have argued that the

applicant cannot claim to be a "victim" in the sense of Article 25 (Art. 25) of

the Convention and that there is no need for legal protection.

48. The Commission has determined this issue in its decision on

the admissibility of the application (see pp. 18f. below).

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

49. 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."

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

breach of the Road Traffic Regulations (see paras. 20 and 37 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.

51. 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-e) (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 in the Lutz case (Eur. Court H.R., Lutz judgment of

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

52. The Commission therefore finds that Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e)

of the Convention was applicable in the present case.

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

53. 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

subsequenntly (Eur. Court H.R., Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28

November 1978, Series A no. 29, p. 19 para. 46).

54. In the present case such costs were imposed by the District

Court's bill of costs of 8 October 1981 (para. 22 above).

55. It follows that the District Court's bill of costs 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.

56. 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

___________________________________________________________________

27 December 1984 Introduction of the application

15 February 1985 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

1 October 1985 Applicant's reply

12 December 1985 Commission considers state of proceedings

5 March 1986 Decision to declare the application

admissible

Examination of the merits

4 July 1986 Government's request to reject the

application under Article 29 of the

Convention

14 July 1986 Commission's deliberations

11 August 1986 Applicant's observations on

Government's request

10 December 1986 Commission's deliberations

11 December 1987 Deliberations resumed in the light of

Lutz judgment of 25 August 1987

5 July 1988 Commission's deliberations and

final votes

5 July 1988 Adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant