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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy