Application No. 14261/88
by Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN
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 1 August 1988
by Sinnadurai Shanmukanathan against the Federal Republic of Germany
and registered on 29 September 1988 under file No. 14261/88;
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 1949 and
living at Talheim. He is represented by Rechtsanwalt N. Wingerter,
a lawyer practising at Heilbronn.
The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.
By a regulatory fine order (Bussgeldbescheid) of 3 October
1986 the Labour Exchange (Arbeitsamt) of Heilbronn imposed on the
applicant a regulatory fine (Geldbusse) for infringing Article 60
para. I no. 2 of the Social Code (Sozialgesetzbuch) I, in that, while
employed, he had drawn unemployment benefits.
On the applicant's objection (Einspruch) the District Court
(Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 7 April 1987 as date of the trial.
An interpreter was appointed for this hearing.
At the trial the applicant withdrew his objection and the
Court ruled that he had to bear the costs of the proceedings.
On 15 April 1987 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse)
fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 407.40 DM, of which
392.40 DM represented the interpreter's fee.
On 6 May 1987 the applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung)
against the bill of costs to the extent that it included the
interpreter's fee.
On 26 August 1987 the District Court dismissed the objection
as unfounded under No. 1904 of the Schedule to the Court Costs Act
(Kostenverzeichnis zum Gerichtskostengesetz); it held that this
provision prevailed over Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention.
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 2 March 1988. The Regional Court
held that No. 1904, second sentence, of the Schedule to the Court
Costs Act, as amended in 1980 following the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc
judgment of 28 November 1978 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 29), did
not cover regulatory proceedings and that it was for the legislator to
take the action required under Article 53 of the Convention following
the Court's subsequent interpretation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the
Convention in the Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984 (Eur. Court
H.R., Series A no. 73). In relation to Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the
Convention, as incorporated into domestic law in 1952, the Schedule,
as amended in 1980, prevailed, being both lex posterior and lex
specialis.
COMPLAINT
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of
the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 1 August and registered on
29 September 1988.
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 23 February 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. 14 261/88
Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
zwischen
Herrn Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN, Hauptstrasse 50, 7129 Talheim,
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. Dem Beschwerdeführer werden die in dem Bussgeldverfahren vor dem
Amtsgericht Heilbronn - 41 OWi 4452/86 - entstandenen und von ihm
gezahlten Dolmetscherkosten in Höhe von 392,40 DM 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 21.2.1990 Heilbronn, den 21.2.90
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. 14261/88
Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN against the Federal Republic of Germany
between
Mr. Sinnadurai SHANMUKANATHAN, Hauptstrasse 50, 7129 Talheim,
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 392.40 DM incurred in regulatory
proceedings - 41 OWi 4452/86 - before the Heilbronn District
Court and 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, 21.2.1990 Heilbronn, 21.2.90
(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