CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 10551/83                             by Cafer ZENGIN                 against the Federal Republic of Germany           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 March 1986 the following members being present:                     MM   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                       G. SPERDUTI                       J.A. FROWEIN                       G. JÖRUNDSSON                       S. TRECHSEL                       B. KIERNAN                       A. WEITZEL                       J.C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       G. BATLINER                       H. VANDENBERGHE                   Mrs G.H. THUNE                   Sir Basil HALL             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;   - the application introduced on 11 January 1983 by Cafer ZENGIN   against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on   12 September 1983 under file No. 10551/83;   - the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in the   Öztürk case on 21 February 1984 (Series A No. 73);   - the Rapporteur's first report, under Rule 40 of the Commission's   Rules of Procedure, of 29 April 1985;   - the Commission's decision of 8 May 1985 to communicate the   application to the respondent Government under Rule 42 (2)(b);   - the Government's observations of 20 September 1985;   - the applicant's reply of 3 October 1985;   - the Government's further observations of 7 November 1985;   - the Rapporteur's second report of 13 December 1985;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1946 and residing at Nordheim (Federal Republic of Germany).   In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr N. Wingerter, a lawyer practising in Heilbronn.           On 9 October 1981, in Heilbronn, the applicant caused an accident with his motor vehicle which resulted in approximately 5,000 DM worth of damage to the other vehicle.           By a regulatory fine order (Bussgeldbescheid) of 9 February 1982 the Office of Public Order (Amt für öffentliche Ordnung) of the city of Heilbronn imposed on the applicant a regulatory fine (Geldbusse) of 100 DM for careless driving (Ausserachtlassung der nötigen Vorsicht) infringing Articles 1 para. 2 and 49 of the Road Traffic Regulations (Strassenverkehrsordnung).   This order was issued under Article 17 of the Regulatory Offences Act (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten).   The applicant was also ordered to pay a fee (Gebühr) of 10 DM and expenses (Auslagen) of the Office of 4 DM.           On the applicant's objection (Einspruch) the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 7 May, 1.30 pm, as date and time of the trial.   At counsel's request, filed in reply to a question from the Court, an interpreter was appointed for his hearing.           Immediately before the hearing the applicant, having discussed the case with counsel, assisted by the interpreter, withdrew the objection.   The Court then ruled that the applicant also had to bear the further costs of the proceedings and his own expenses.           On 26 May 1982 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse) fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 120.20 DM, of which 53 DM represented interpreter's fees.           The applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung) against the bill of costs to the extent that it included the interpreter's fee. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and referred to the Commission's decision of 15 December 1981 admitting Application No. 8544/79 (Öztürk v. the Federal Republic of Germany, D.R. 26, 55).           The District Court dismissed the objection on 27 October 1982 on the ground that regulatory fine proceedings were administrative proceedings to which Article 6 of the Convention did not apply.           On 10 November 1982 counsel submitted the Commission's report of 12 May 1982 in the Öztürk case and requested the District Court to reconsider its decision.           The District Court ruled on 25 November 1982 that counsel's submissions did not call for an amendment of the Court's ruling of 27 October 1982 since a final decision of the European Court of Human Rights had not yet been delivered.   COMPLAINT           The applicant submits that proceedings concerning regulatory offences are criminal proceedings covered by Article 6 of the Convention.   He alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) and relies on the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in the Öztürk case on 21 February 1984 (Series A No. 73).   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES           The Government submit that Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention is intended to secure fair criminal proceedings also for the foreigner who does not understand the language used in court, and to avoid any procedural disadvantage arising from this circumstance. This principle was observed in the present case.   The Court asked the applicant to state whether an interpreter was required for the hearing and an interpreter was made available following counsel's request.           In the Government's view, however, Article 6 para. 3 (e) cannot be interpreted as obliging the Contracting States to pay the fee of an appointed interpreter where an objection is withdrawn immediately before the trial so that the appointment of the interpreter cannot be cancelled in time.   It must be expected of the applicant that - if judicial control has been requested and a hearing has been fixed - he examines in time the question of whether he wishes to uphold the objection or to withdraw it, thereby avoiding undue administrative time and effort.   Article 109 of the Regulatory Offences Act thus provides that the defendant has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he withdraws his objection to the regulatory fine order.           Moreover, regulatory offences, under the law of the Federal Republic of Germany, are not criminal but administrative matters. Sanctions in the form of regulatory fines are imposed by the administrative authorities.   The fact that this case involves minor matters without criminal law consequences for the defendant do not however free him from a responsible preparation of his proceedings and from his obligation towards the general public to alleviate the damage. Costs caused by attributable delays and similar circumstances have to be borne by the person causing them.   This also applies to interpreter's fees.   It would amount to a preferential treatment of the foreign national, not covered by the purpose of Article 6 para. 3 (e), were one to free him from such costs as well and make the tax-payer liable for them.   Particularly in view of the budgetary problems facing the State and the priorities to be established by the organs of justice in suppressing serious crime and in their other tasks, this is not justified and cannot be deduced from the Convention.           The Government also observe that Article 6 para. 3 (e) applies only to the relations between the accused and the judge and does not cover relations between the accused and his defence counsel (No. 6185/73, Dec. 29.5.75, D.R. 2, 68).           The Government conclude that the application is manifestly ill-founded.           The applicant submits that the present case cannot be distinguished from the Öztürk case, where the objection against the regulatory fine was not withdrawn before, but only during the trial. The present applicant could not ascertain the chances of his objection until immediately before the trial.   The bill of costs did not state that he had to pay the fee of the interpreter because of the late withdrawal of the objection.   The Heilbronn Court always includes interpreter's fees in bills of costs, having been invited by the Federal Minister of Justice to disregard the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Öztürk case.           The applicant here refers to:         - a circular letter of the Federal Ministry of Justice to the         Ministers of Justice of the Länder (Landesjustizverwaltungen),         dated 8 June 1984, in which the Ministry expressed the view         that the Court's judgment on the merits of 21 February 1984         in the Öztürk case "has not modified domestic law" ("das         innerstaaatliche Recht nicht geändert") and that the         conclusions to be drawn from that judgment are being         considered; and         - a further letter of 24 September 1985, in which the Ministry         stated that "the situation remains unchanged" ("der Sachstand         unverändert ist").   THE LAW           The Commission has had regard to the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights in the Öztürk case on 21 February 1984 (Series A No. 73).   In that judgment the Court held that Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention had been violated.           The Commission observes that the present application, like the Öztürk case, concerns an order to pay the fees of an interpreter who had been appointed in court proceedings relating to a regulatory offence.           It is disputed between the parties whether the present case, in which the objection against the regulatory fine order was withdrawn immediately before the District Court's hearing, can for the purposes of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) be distinguished from the Öztürk case, in which the objection was only withdrawn in the course of the trial.           This question cannot in the Commission's view be determined at the admissibility stage but must be decided on the basis of an examination of the merits of the present application.           It follows that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)