AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 29801/96
by Manfred LANGER
against Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 12 December 1995
by Manfred LANGER against Germany and registered on 12 January 1996
under file No. 29801/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, born in 1969, is a German national and resident
in Flensburg. In the proceedings before the Commission he is
represented by Mr. K.-H. Wintzenburg, a lawyer practising in Hannover.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
On 18 January 1994 the Hannover District Court (Amtsgericht)
issued a penal order (Strafbefehl) against the applicant imposing a
fine amounting to DM 1,614 upon him for two counts of obtaining public
transport services under false pretences. The Court found that the
applicant, on two occasions, had deliberately taken the municipal bus
without having had a ticket. The Court noted that it had considered
the applicant's admission of guilt as a mitigating circumstance.
Following the applicant's objection to the penal order, the
District Court conducted the trial hearing against him. In these and
the following proceedings, the applicant was represented by
Mr. Wintzenburg.
At the hearing of 7 September 1994, the District Court convicted
the applicant of one count of having deliberately obtained public
transport services under false pretences and acquitted him of the
remaining charge. The Court found that on 16 December 1992 and on
11 October 1993, respectively, the applicant had taken the municipal
bus without having had a valid ticket with him. The Court noted the
applicant's defence that for both months, he had been in possession of
transferable season tickets, which he had exclusively used and only
forgotten at home on the relevant dates. At the trial, he had produced
in evidence a season ticket for the month of October 1993. The Court
therefore assumed in his favour that he himself had bought and
exclusively used the season ticket for the month of October 1993.
However, regarding the incident in December 1992, he had at no stage
of the proceedings against him been in a position to present such a
monthly season ticket. The statement of the witness for the defence
that, as far as he remembered, the applicant had regularly bought
season tickets, was inconclusive. The Court was therefore convinced
that on the relevant day the applicant had travelled on public
transport without payment.
On 23 December 1994 the Hannover Regional Court (Landgericht)
rejected the applicant's appeal (Berufung) on the ground that it was
obviously ill-founded. The Regional Court confirmed that the District
Court's reasoning was conclusive and convincing. The appeal
submissions did not disclose any new facts or means of evidence which
could possibly warrant a different assessment of the case.
On 3 July 1995 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes-
verfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant's constitutional
complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention
about his conviction of 7 September 1994. He considers that his
defence argument of having been in possession of a monthly season
ticket for December 1992 had not been refuted.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that his conviction by the Hannover
District Court, as confirmed by the Hannover Regional Court, amounts
to a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. His
argument relates to the District Court's evaluation of the evidence.
The Commission recalls that, according to Article 19 (Art. 19)
of the Convention, the duty of the Convention organs is to ensure the
observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States in
the Convention. In particular, it is not their function to deal with
errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless
and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected
by the Convention (cf. Eur. Court HR, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment
of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, para. 45).
The Commission has found it appropriate to look at the
applicant's complaint about the District Court's evaluation of evidence
from the points of view of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6
(Art. 6-1+6-2) taken together, especially as the guarantees in
paragraph 2 represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained
in paragraph 1 (cf., Eur. Court HR, Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment
of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29; Artner v.
Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, para.
19).
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, so far as relevant,
provides as follows:
"1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
..."
The Commission further recalls that it is not for the Convention
organs to substitute their own assessment of the facts for that of the
domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to
assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the
evidence which the defendants seek to adduce. The task under the
Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety
were fair (cf., Eur. Court HR., Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of
7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; Vidal v. Belgium
judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33).
The Commission notes that the Hannover District Court found the
applicant guilty of one count of having obtained public transport
services under false pretences. On the basis of the evidence before
it, the District Court was convinced that the applicant had, on the
particular date, taken the municipal bus without having a valid ticket.
In this respect, the Court duly noted the applicant's defence argument,
namely that he had bought a season ticket for the month concerned,
which he had merely forgotten at home. The District Court also noted
the statements of the defence witness. However, it considered as
decisive that the applicant had been found in the bus without a ticket
and had failed to present the alleged season ticket. The applicant,
assisted by defence counsel, had adequate opportunity to argue the
probative value of the evidence in court.
Having regard to all circumstances, the Commission finds no
sufficient grounds to conclude that the trial court's evaluation of
evidence in the applicant's case was incompatible with Article 6
(Art.6).
The applicant's submissions do not, therefore, disclose any
appearance of a violation of his rights under Article 6 paras. 1 and 2
(Art. 6-1, 6-2) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy