The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention
relating to the application lodged on 11 January 1983 by Mr Cafer
Zengin against the Federal Republic of Germany (No. 10551/83);
Whereas on 13 January 1989 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention
elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court
of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
Convention;
Whereas in his application the applicant complained that the Heilbronn
District Court had ordered him to pay the costs incurred through
recourse to the services of an interpreter in proceedings concerning
an alleged regulatory offence, and claimed that there had been a
violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.e (art. 6-3-e), of the Convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on
4 March 1986 and in its report adopted on 6 December 1988 expressed
unanimously the opinion that there had been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 3.e (art. 6-3-e), of the Convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;
Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of
Ministers was informed by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany that following amendments to the Court Costs Act and the Code
of Criminal Procedure introduced by an Act of 15 June 1989, which
entered into force on 1 July 1989, henceforth, in criminal proceedings
or in court proceedings under the Regulatory Offences Act,
interpretation costs shall be payable by an accused or other person
concerned who does not understand German only if these costs are
imposed on him by the court on the grounds that he incurred them
unnecessarily by his own default or in another culpable manner;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers was also informed by the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany that the interpretation costs,
which had been borne by the applicant personally and not by an
insurance company, had been repaid to the applicant,
Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,
paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there has been a
violation of Article 6, paragraph 3.e (art. 6-3-e), of the Convention
in this case;
Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany;
Decides that no further action is called for in this case.