CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 décembre 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 }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 December 1986, the following members being present:                     MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                       E. BUSUTTIL                       G. JÖRUNDSSON                       G. TENEKIDES                       S. TRECHSEL                       B. KIERNAN                       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                       A. WEITZEL                       J.C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                       G. BATLINER                       H. VANDENBERGHE                   Mrs G.H. THUNE                   Sir Basil HALL                    Mr F. MARTINEZ                      Mr J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to:   - Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   - the application introduced on 29 May 1980 by A.P. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 2 June 1980 under file No. 9026/80;   - the Commission's decision of 10 July 1981 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to adjourn further examination of the present case pending the determination of the Öztürk case (Application No. 8544/79);   - the judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in the Öztürk case - Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A No. 73, and Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 23 October 1984 (Article 50) (art. 50), Series A No. 85;   - the Commission's decision of 5 December 1984 to request the Government to state whether or not they would waive such objections as they might have against the admissibility of the present application;   - the Government's letter of 26 February 1985;   - the Commission's decision of 11 March 1985 to invite Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann to submit further evidence;   - Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann's letter of 1 April 1985;   - the Government's letters of 30 April and 18 June 1985;   - the Commission's decision of 6 July 1985 to invite the Government to file, before 16 September 1985, such observations as they might wish to make on the application;   - the Government's letter of 20 September 1985 requesting an extension of the above time-limit;   - the President's order of 30 September extending the time-limit to 2 December 1985;   - the Government's letter of 6 December 1985 stating that they wished to settle the case;   - the Government's letter, enclosing a copy of their letter to the applicant's representative with a draft agreement, of 21 May 1986;   - the Government's letter of 4 June 1986 enclosing the agreement reached between the parties;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicant is a Greek citizen, born in 1953 and residing in Fürth. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Rechtsanwalt R. Wiedemann, a lawyer practising in Nuremberg.   On 18 May 1979 the administrative authorities in Nuremberg issued a notice of regulatory fine (Bussgeld) against the applicant on the ground that he had committed an offence under the Bavarian Emissions Act (Bayerisches Immissionsschutzgesetz).   The applicant lodged an objection (Einspruch) against this decision.   At the hearing before the Nuremberg District Court (Amtsgericht) on 19 July 1979 the applicant was assisted by an interpreter.   By its judgment of the same day the Court fined the applicant for having committed offences under the Emissions Act and decided that he should bear the costs of the proceedings.   On 15 August 1979 the Legal Administrator of the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the Regional Court (Rechtspfleger der Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht) of Nuremberg-Fürth assessed interpretation costs amounting to DM 83.90.   The applicant's objection (Erinnerung) against this assessment of costs was dismissed by the District Court on 17 December 1979.   The Court held that Article 6 para. 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) of the Convention does not apply to regulatory fine proceedings.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained that he was ordered to pay the interpretation costs.   He alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) and further invoked Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 29 May and registered on 2 June 1980.   On 10 July 1981 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to adjourn further examination of the present case pending the determination of the Öztürk case (Application No. 8544/79).   On 5 December 1984 the Commission resumed its examination of the present case in the light of the judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in the Öztürk case - Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A No. 73, and Eur. Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 23 October 1984 (Article 50) (art. 50), Series A No. 85.   The Commission decided to request the Government to state whether or not they would waive such objections as they might have against the admissibility of the present application.   The Government replied in a letter of 26 February 1985.   In accordance with their request the Commission decided on 11 March 1985 to invite Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann:   - to submit a recent power of attorney or equivalent document showing that the applicant intended to maintain his application; and   - to adduce evidence that the interpretation fee of DM 83.90 was indeed paid and, if so, to state whether the applicant personally had borne it.   In his reply of 1 April 1985 Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann stated that the interpretation fee had been paid by the applicant.   He enclosed a recent power of attorney signed by the applicant and dated 29 March 1985.   On 6 July 1985 the Commission decided to invite the Government to file, before 16 September 1985, such observations as they might wish to make on the application.   This time-limit was at the Government's request extended to 2 December 1985.   By a letter of 6 December 1985 the Government informed the Commission of their intention to settle the case.   By a letter of 21 May 1985 the Government informed the Commission of the terms of a draft agreement which they had sent to Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann.   Under cover of their letter of 4 June 1986 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   betr. das am 2. Juni 1980 von der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte registrierte Individualbe- schwerdeverfahren No. 9026/80   z w i s c h e n   Herrn A.P., Kaiserplatz 1, 8510 Fürth, Beschwerdeführer, vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr. Richard Wiedemann, Nürnberg,   u n d   der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vertreten durch Ministerial- dirigentin Irene Maier, Bundesministerium der Justiz, 5300 Bonn 2   1.       Dem Beschwerdeführer werden die in dem Bussgeldverfahren vor dem Amtsgericht Nürnberg - 46 OWi 223 JS 7921/79 - entstandenen und in der Kostenrechnung 112 VRS 007221/79 unter Nr. 4 ausgewiesenen Dolmetscherkosten von 83.90 DM zurückerstattet.   2.       Die Bundesregierung zahlt dem Beschwerdeführer zur Abgeltung der ihm im Erinnerungsverfahren gegen diesen Kostenansatz und anlässlich der Einlegung der Individualbeschwerde bei der Europäischen Menschenrechtskommission entstandenen Kosten und Auslagen einen Betrag von insgesamt 6oo,- (sechshundert) D-Mark.   3.       Die Beträge zu 1. und 2. werden an den Verfahrensbevoll- mächtigten des Beschwerdeführers, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Wiedemann, überwiesen, der sich verpflichtet, die Bundesregierung hinsichtlich der Zahlung gegenüber dem Beschwerdeführer freizustellen.   4.       Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt die Beschwerde hiermit für erledigt und ist mit der Streichung aus dem Register durch die Europäische Kommission für Menschenrechte einverstanden.   Bonn, den 21. Mai 1986              Nürnberg, den 2.6.1986   gez. I. Maier                         gez. R. Wiedemann   (Ministerialdirigentin                  (Rechtsanwalt     Irene Maier)                         Dr. Wiedemann)"   (English translation by the Council of Europe)   "A g r e e m e n t   concerning individual Application No. 9026/80, registered with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 June 1980   b e t w e e n   Mr. A.P., Kaiserplatz 1, 8510 Fürth, applicant, represented by Dr. Richard Wiedemann, lawyer, Nuremberg,   a n d   the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Mrs. Irene Maier, Ministerialdirigentin, Federal Ministry of Justice, 5300 Bonn 2   1.       Interpretation costs of 83,90 DM incurred in regulatory proceedings (Ref. 46 OWi 223 JS 7921/79) before the Nuremberg District Court, as set out in the bill of costs (Ref. 112 VRS 007221/79) under No. 4, shall be reimbursed.   2.       In satisfaction of the costs incurred by the applicant in the objection proceedings to the above-mentioned bill of costs and the costs incurred in the submission of the applicant's complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights, the Federal Republic shall pay to the applicant the sum of 600 DM (DM six hundred).   3.       The sums referred to in paragraphs 1. and 2. above shall be paid to the applicant's representative in the proceedings, Dr. Wiedemann, lawyer, who undertakes to indemnify the Federal Government against the applicant in respect of the payment.   4.       The applicant declares that the application is settled and that he agrees to it being struck out of the list of cases of the European Commission of Human Rights.     Bonn, 21 May 1986                    Nuremberg, 2 June 1986     (signed) I. Maier                    (signed) R. Wiedemann   (Ministerialdirigentin                      (Rechtsanwalt     Irene Maier)                            Dr Wiedemann)"   The Government state that they have arranged for the sum of DM 683.90 to be paid to Rechtsanwalt Wiedemann.   They refer to para. 4 of the above agreement and request that the application be struck out of the Commission's list of cases.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION   Rule 44 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure provides:   "1.   Unless it considers that any reason of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention justifies further examination of an application, the Commission may strike it out of its list of cases:   a.   where the applicant states that he wishes to withdraw his application;   or   b.   where the circumstances .... lead to the conclusion that he does not intend to pursue his application."   The Commission notes that the parties have reached an agreement on the applicant's claims.   The Government request that the application be struck off the list.   The applicant states that his application is settled and he agrees to the Government's request.   The Commission finds no reason of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which, following the above agreement between the parties, necessitate a further examination of the present application.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECIDES TO STRIKE THIS APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Deputy Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission               (J. RAYMOND)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)