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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Karlheinz Schmidt case delivered on 18 July 1994 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application
(No. 13580/88) against Germany, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 August 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Karlheinz Schmidt, a German national, and that the Commission declared admissible his complaint of a breach of the principle of sexual equality in so far as in the Land of
Baden-Württemberg only men were subject to the obligation to serve as firemen or pay a financial contribution;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 7 April 1993;
Whereas in its judgment of 18 July 1994 the Court:
- held unanimously that Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4, paragraph 3.d (art. 14+4-3-d), was applicable in this case;
- held by six votes to three that there had been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4, paragraph 3.d (art. 14+4-3-d);
- held unanimously that it was not necessary also to examine the case from the point of view of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 14+P1-1);
- held by eight votes to one that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 620 Deutsche marks for damage and costs and expenses;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;
Having invited the Government of Germany to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment
of 18 July 1994, having regard to Germany's obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Germany gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the Government of Germany paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 18 July 1994,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Germany, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 100
Information provided by the Government of Germany
during the examination of the Karlheinz Schmidt case
by the Committee of Ministers
Following the judgment of the Court, the authorities of the Land Baden-Württemberg and of the two other Länder which had similar regulations (Bayern and Sachsen) stopped requesting the payment of outstanding fire service levies (Feuerwehrabgabe) and stopped imposing new obligations to pay these levies.
Subsequently, the Federal Constitutional Court has held, in a judgment of 24 January 1995 (1 BvL 18/93 u.a., see, inter alia, EuGRZ 1995, 410) concerning the regulations in two of the three Länder (Baden-Württemberg and Bayern - the situation in Sachsen was not before the Court in this case), that the impugned provisions, which imposed on men only the duty of doing fire service and of paying fire service levy, amounted to a discrimination based on sex contrary to Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).
The Federal Constitutional Court also held that this kind of levy was contrary to the general principles applicable to special levies of a tax character (die Grundsätze über die finanzverfassungsrechtliche Zulässigkeit parafiskalischer Sonderabgaben). It finally held that the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions rendered these null and void (Nichtigerklärung). A mere declaration of incompatibility (Unvereinbarerklärung), in order to provide the legislator with an opportunity to amend the provisions in issue, was excluded on account of the nature of the constitutional breaches found.
The corresponding regulations in Sachsen are no longer in force.
In view of these developments there is no longer any risk of repetition of the violation found by the Court and the government therefore considers that Germany has complied with its obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy