CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 décembre 1988

.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 }    Application No. 10551/83             Cafer ZENGIN       against       the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 6 December 1988)       TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 Page   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 19) ......................................      1           A.       The application                 (paras. 2 - 4) ...............................      1           B.       The proceedings                 (paras. 5 - 14) ..............................      1           C.       The present Report                 (paras. 15 - 19) .............................      2   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 20 - 39) .....................................      3           A.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 20 - 25) .............................      3           B.       Relevant domestic law                 (paras. 26 - 39) .............................      5                 1.   Act on Regulatory Offences                    (paras. 26 - 36) ..........................      5                 2.   Road Traffic fines                    (paras. 37 - 39) ..........................      7   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES         (paras. 40 - 49) .....................................      8           A.       The applicant                 (paras. 40 - 43) .............................      8           B.       The Government                 (paras. 44 - 49) .............................      8   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 50 - 67) .....................................     10           A.       Point at issue                 (para. 50) ...................................     10           B.       Applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e)                 of the Convention                 (paras. 51 - 54) .............................     10           C.       Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e)                 (paras. 55 - 66) .............................     10           D.       Conclusion                 (para. 67) ...................................     12   APPENDIX I       :   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................     13   APPENDIX II      :   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY .............     14   I.     INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application   2.       The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1946 and living at Nordheim (Federal Republic of Germany).   He was represented before the Commission by Mr.   N. Wingerter, a lawyer practising in Heilbronn.   3.       The application is directed against the Federal Republic of Germany.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Mrs.   I. Maier, Ministerialdirigentin, succeeded by Mr.   J. Meyer-Ladewig, Ministerialdirigent, both of the Federal Ministry of Justice.   4.       The applicant complains that, in proceedings concerning a regulatory offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit), he was ordered to pay the fee of the interpreter amounting to 53 DM.   He invokes Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 11 January 1983 and registered on 12 September 1983.   6.       On 8 May 1985 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to state before 28 June 1985 whether or not, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of 21 February 1984 in the Öztürk case (Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 73), they would wish to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the present application and, in the affirmative, to submit such observations before 2 August 1985.   7.       The Government replied that they wished to submit observations.   Following an extension of the time-limit their observations of 20 September were received on 24 September 1985. The applicant's reply of 3 October was received on 7 October 1985. The Government's further submissions of 7 November arrived on 13 November 1985, the applicant's reply of 27 February on 3 March 1986.   8.       On 4 March 1986 the Commission declared the application admissible.   9.       On 26 and 27 March 1986 the text of this decision was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit any additional observations on the merits by 16 May 1986.   10.      The Government's observations of 20 June were received on 27 June 1986, the applicant's reply of 28 January arrived on 30 January 1987.   11.      The Commission considered the parties' submissions on 8 July 1987.   12.      On 11 December 1987 the Commission resumed its examination of the application in the light of the judgment given by the Court in the Lutz case on 25 August 1987 (Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 123 - A).   13.      On 6 December 1988 the Commission took their final vote on the case.   14.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be reached.     C.       The present Report   15.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY   16.      The text of this Report was adopted on 6 December 1988 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   17.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is:   i)       to establish the facts, and   ii)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found         disclose a breach by the State concerned of its         obligations under the Convention.   18.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   19.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       The particular circumstances of the case   20.      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.   21.      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.   22.      On the applicant's objection (Einspruch) the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 7 May 1982, 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 this hearing.           Immediately before the hearing the applicant, having discussed the case with counsel, withdrew the objection.   It is disputed between the parties whether, at the above discussion, the applicant and his lawyer were assisted by the interpreter.   The Court then ruled that the applicant had to bear the further costs of the proceedings and his own expenses.   23.      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.   24.      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 p. 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.   25.      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.   B.       Relevant domestic law           1. Act on Regulatory Offences   26.      The subject of "regulatory offences" is governed by the Act of 24 May 1968 on Regulatory Offences (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten), in its version of 1 January 1975 ("the 1968/1975 Act").   The purpose of this legislation was to remove petty offences from the sphere of the criminal law.   Included in this category were road traffic contraventions.   Commission of such contraventions had given rise to liability to a fine (Geldstrafe) or imprisonment (Haft).   Section 3 (6) of the Introductory Act of 24 May 1968 (Einführungsgesetz zum Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten) classified them as "Ordnungswidrigkeiten" and henceforth made them punishable only by fines (Geldbussen) not deemed to be criminal by the legislature.           a) General provisions   27.      Section 1 (1) of the 1968/1975 Act defines a "regulatory offence" as an unlawful and reprehensible act, contravening a legal provision which makes offenders liable to a fine.   The fine cannot be less than DM 5 or, as a general rule, more than DM 1,000 (Section 17 (1)). The amount of the fine is fixed in each case by reference to the seriousness of the offence, the degree of misconduct attributable to the offender and, save for minor offences, the offender's financial circumstances (Section 17 (3)).           b) Prosecuting authorities   28.      "Regulatory offences" are to be dealt with by the administrative authorities designated by law, save insofar as the 1968/1975 Act confers the power of prosecution of such offences on the public prosecutor and the trial and punishment of them on the courts (Sections 35 and 36).           c) Procedure in general   29.      Subject to the exceptions laid down in the 1968/1975 Act, the provisions of the ordinary law governing criminal procedure - in particular the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicature Act (Gerichts- verfassungsgesetz) and the Juvenile Courts Act (Jugendgerichtsgesetz) - are applicable by analogy to the procedure in respect of "regulatory offences" (Section 46 (1)).   The prosecuting authorities have the same rights and duties as the public prosecutor in a criminal matter unless the 1968/1975 Act itself states otherwise (Section 46 (2)). Nevertheless, a number of measures permissibile in criminal matters cannot be ordered in respect of "regulatory offences", notably arrest and interim police custody (vorläufige Festnahme) (Section 46 (3)).   30.      The prosecution of "regulatory offences" lies within the discretion (pflichtgemässiges Ermessen) of the competent authority, which may terminate the prosecution at any time while the case is pending before it (Section 47 (1)).   Once the case has been brought before a court, power to direct a stay of proceedings rests with the court; any such decision requires the agreement of the public prosecutor and is final (Section 47 (2)).           d) Administrative decision imposing a fine   31.      Save insofar as the 1968/1975 Act provides otherwise, a "regulatory offence" is punishable by an administrative decision imposing a fine (Bussgeldbescheid; Section 65).           The person concerned may lodge an objection within a period which on 1 April 1987 was increased from one week to two weeks (Section 67).   Unless they withdraw their decision, the administrative authorities will then forward the file to the public prosecutor, who will submit it to the competent District Court and thereupon assume the function of prosecuting authority (Sections 68 and 69).           e) Judicial stage of the procedure   32.      Under Section 71, if the District Court finds the objection admissible (Section 70) it will, unless the 1968/1975 Act states otherwise, examine the objection in accordance with the provisions applicable to an objection against an order of summary punishment (Strafbefehl): in principle, it will hold a hearing and deliver a judgment which may impose a heavier sentence (Article 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).   The person concerned has the option of attending the hearing but is not bound to do so unless the District Court so directs (Section 73 (1) and (2)); he may be represented by a lawyer (Section 73 (4)).           f) Enforcement of decisions imposing a fine   33.      A decision imposing a fine is enforceable once it has become final (Sections 89 and 84).   If, without having established his inability to pay, the person concerned has not paid the fine due in time, the court may, at the request of the administrative authorities or, where the fine was imposed by a court decision, of its own motion, order coercive imprisonment (Erzwingungshaft - Section 96 (1)).   The resultant detention does not replace payment of the fine in the manner of an "Ersatzfreiheitsstrafe" under the criminal law, but is intended to compel payment.   The period of detention may not exceed six weeks for one fine and three months for several fines (Section 96 (3)). Implementation of the detention order is governed, inter alia, by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 97).           g) Costs   34.      As far as the costs of the administrative procedure are concerned, the competent authorities apply by analogy certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 105).   35.      Under Section 109, the person concerned has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he withdraws his objection or if the competent court rejects it.           The costs in question are made up of the expenses and fees of the Treasury (Article 464 (a) para. 1, first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure).   These fees and expenses are listed in the Court Costs Act (Gerichtskostengesetz) which in turn refers, inter alia, to the Witnesses and Experts (Expenses) Act (Gesetz über die Entschädigung von Zeugen und Sachverständigen).   Section 17 sub-section 2 of the last-mentioned Act provides that "for the purposes of compensation, interpreters shall be treated as experts".           Interpretation costs (Dolmetscherkosten) are thus included in the costs of judicial proceedings.   However, as far as criminal proceedings - and criminal proceedings alone - are concerned, the German legislature amended the schedule (Kostenverzeichnis) to the Court Costs Act following the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978 (Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 29).   According to no. 1904 in this schedule, henceforth no charge is to be made for "the sums due to interpreters and translators engaged in criminal proceedings in order to translate, for an accused who is deaf or dumb or not conversant with the German language, the statements or documents which the accused needs to understand for his defence" (Act of 18 August 1980).   36.      Under the terms of Section 109 of the 1968/1975 Act, the question of payment of the costs of the proceedings, including the interpretation costs, only arises once the withdrawal or dismissal of the objection has become final.   The person concerned may never be required to make an advance payment in respect of the costs concerned.           2. Road traffic fines   37.      The Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsgesetz), the Road Traffic Regulations and the Road Traffic Licence and Vehicle Conformity Regulations (Strassenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung) contain lists of "regulatory offences" punishable by a fine (Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act).           Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act provides:           "1.   It shall be a 'regulatory offence' wilfully or         negligently to contravene a provision in a statutory         instrument (Rechtsverordnung) made pursuant to         Section 6 (1) or in an order (Anordnung) made pursuant         to such a statutory instrument if the statutory         instrument concerned refers to the present provision ...         in respect of a given offence.   Such reference shall         not be required where the provision of the statutory         instrument was made before 1 January 1969.           2.    A 'regulatory offence' is punishable by a fine."           The Road Traffic Regulations, which were applied in the present case, were contained in one of the statutory instruments issued under Section 6 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.   38.      Section 1 para. 2 of the Road Traffic Regulations provides:           "Every road user shall behave in such a manner as neither         to cause damage to nor to endanger any other road user,         nor to obstruct or cause nuisance to any other road user         more than is unavoidable in the circumstances."   39.      Section 49 para. 1 of the Road Traffic Regulations provides:           "A 'regulatory offence' within the meaning of Section 24         of the Road Traffic Act is committed by anyone who         deliberately or negligently contravenes any provision         relating to:           1.   The general behaviour of road users under Section 1            para. 2, ...."   III.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The applicant           1. As to fact   40.      The applicant submits that, at the pre-trial conversation with his lawyer on 7 May 1982, he was assisted by the interpreter.           2. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention   41.      The applicant submits that proceedings concerning regulatory offences are criminal proceedings covered by Article 6 of the Convention.           3. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention   42.      In the applicant's view, the present case cannot be distinguished from the the Öztürk case (Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73), 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, when he had a conversation with his lawyer, assisted by the interpreter.   He then withdrew the objection at once in order to save further costs.   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 applicant concedes that the interpreter   did not act before the Court but he considers that his assistance at the pre-trial conversation with counsel was also covered by Article 6 para. 3 (e) and relies in this respect on the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978 (Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 29, p. 20 para. 48).   43.      The applicant concludes that the decision of the District Court, by which he was ordered to pay the interpreter's fee, violated Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.     B.       The Government           1. As to fact   44.      The Government concede that the interpreter was present before the court hearing on 7 May 1982, but they contest that he assisted the applicant and his lawyer in their pre-trial conversation.           2. Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention   45.      The Government submit that Article 6 does not apply to regulatory proceedings.   Under the law of the Federal Republic of Germany regulatory offences are not criminal but administrative matters.   Sanctions in the form of regulatory fines are imposed by the administrative authorities.           3. Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention   46.      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, while the same cannot be said of the practice in other High Contracting States.   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.   47.      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 and his counsel that - if judicial control has been requested and a hearing has been fixed - they examine in time the question of whether they wish to uphold the objection or to withdraw it, thereby avoiding undue administrative time and effort.   This the defence failed to do in the present case.   Section 109 of the Regulatory Offences Act (para. 35 above) thus provides that the defendant has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he withdraws his objection to the regulatory fine order.           The Government argue that 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.   48.      With regard to the pre-trial conversation between the applicant and his counsel and the alleged assistance by the interpreter, the Government also observe that Article 6 para. 3 (e) applies only to the relations between the accused and his defence counsel (No. 6185/73, Dec. 29.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 68).   49.      The Government conclude that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.   IV.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.       Point at issue   50.      The issue to be determined in the present application is whether the obligation imposed on the applicant to pay the interpreter's fee violated Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention.   B.       Applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention   51.      Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention provides:           "3.   Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the         following minimum rights:         ...         e. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he         cannot understand or speak the language used in court."   52.      The Commission notes that the applicant had to answer for a breach of the Road Traffic Regulations (see paras. 21 and 37 - 39 above). In German law this was not a criminal offence (Straftat) but a "regulatory offence" ("Ordnungswidrigkeit").   However, this classification is not decisive for the purposes of the Convention.   53.      The Commission here recalls that the issue of the applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention to proceedings concerning "regulatory offences" was determined in the Öztürk case.   In that case the Court held that Mr. Öztürk, who likewise   had to answer for a breach of the Road Traffic Regulations, was "charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) (Eur.   Court H.R., Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 21 para. 54).   This view has in the meanwhile been confirmed by the Court in the Lutz case (Eur.   Court H.R., Lutz judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123 - A, p. 22 para. 53) and by the Commission in the Akdogan case (Akdogan v.   Federal Republic of Germany, Comm.   Report 5.7.88, para. 52).   54.      The Commission therefore finds that Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention was applicable in the present case.     C.       Compliance with Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e)   55.      The right protected by Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention entails, for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in court, the right to receive the free assistance of an interpreter, without the payment of the costs thereby incurred being claimed back from him subsequently (Eur.   Court H.R., Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, p. 19 para. 46).   56.      Interpretation costs were imposed on the present applicant by the District Court's bill of costs of 26 May 1982 (para. 23 above).   57.      It is disputed between the parties whether the present case, in which the objection against the regulatory fine order was withdrawn immediately before the trial, 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.   58.      The applicant concedes that the interpreter did not act at the hearing.   He states that the interpreter assisted at the pre-trial conversation between the applicant and his counsel and argues that such assistance is also covered by Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e).   59.      The Government concede that the interpreter was present before the court hearing, but they contest that he assisted the applicant and his lawyer at their pre-trial conversation.   In any case, in the Government's view Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) applies only to the relations between the accused and the judge and does not cover relations between the accused and his defence counsel.   60.      The Commission has not found it necessary to investigate whether the interpreter assisted at the pre-trial conversation and, if so, to determine the applicability of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) to that stage of criminal proceedings.   61.      It notes that the interpreter was appointed for the trial and that the applicant was charged with his fees under that appointment. To this extent the circumstances are clearly the same as in the Öztürk case.   62.      Moreover, the cost order concerning the interpreter's fees in the present case cannot, in the Commission's view, be justified under Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) on the ground that the applicant withdrew his objection against the regulatory fine order.   In the Öztürk case the objection against the regulatory fine order was also withdrawn and the Commission and the Court nevertheless found a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e).   63.      It is true that, in the Öztürk case, the objection was only withdrawn at the trial, while in the present case the withdrawal of the objection took place before the trial.   But in the Commission's view this difference in time does not justify a different conclusion under Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e).   The Commission here notes that the immediate withdrawal of the objection after the pre-trial conversation served the interests of procedural economy.   64.      Different considerations may apply where the accused fails to appear and where it therefore becomes necessary to appoint the interpreter a second time for a new hearing, cf.   Application No. 11311/84, Fedele v.   Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 9.12.87, not yet published.   However, this situation is not before the Commission in the present case.   65.      It follows that this case, in which the objection against the regulatory fine was withdrawn immediately before the trial, cannot be distinguished from the Öztürk case, in which it was only withdrawn at the trial.   66.      The District Court's bill of costs therefore violated the applicant's right under Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e), insofar as he was ordered to pay the fee of the interpreter.     D.       Conclusion   67.      The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) (Art. 6-3-e) of the Convention.           Secretary to the Commission                 President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)     &_APPENDIX I&S       HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS       Date                             Item   ___________________________________________________________________     11 January 1983                  Introduction of the application   12 September 1983                Registration of the application     Examination of admissibility     8 May 1985                      Commission's decision to communicate                                 the application to the respondent                                 Government   20 September 1985                Government's observations     3 October 1985                  Applicant's reply     7 November 1985                 Government's further submissions   27 February 1986                 Applicant's reply     4 March 1986                    Decision to declare the application                                 admissible     Examination of the merits   20 June 1986                     Government's observations   14 July 1986                     Commission's deliberations   10 December 1986                 Commission's deliberations   28 January 1987                  Applicant's reply to Government's                                 observations   11 December 1987                 Deliberations resumed in the light of                                 Lutz judgment of 25 August 1987     8 October 1988                  Consideration of state of proceedings     6 December 1988                 Commission's deliberations and final                                 votes     6 December 1988                 Adoption of the Report