CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 juillet 1990

.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. 14446/88                       by R.R.                       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 13 October 1988 by R.R. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 8 December 1988 under file No. 14446/88;           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 1951 and living at B.   He is represented by Rechtsanwalt N. Wingerter, a lawyer practising at Heilbronn.           The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.           On 13 November 1986, in regulatory proceedings (Ordnungs- widrigkeitsverfahren), the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fined the applicant for violation of the Act on Asylum Proceedings (Asylverfahrensgesetz).   It found that he had disregarded his obligation to remain within the Heilbronn District (Landkreis), which formed part of his limited permission to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany.   At the trial the applicant was assisted by an interpreter.           On 6 May 1988 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse) fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 545.20 DM, of which 322.40 DM represented the interpreter's fee.           On 10 May 1988 the applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung) against the bill of costs to the extent that it included the interpreter's fee.           On 22 Juni 1988 the District Court dismissed the objection as unfounded.           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 29 July 1988.   The Regional Court held that No. 1904, second sentence, of the Schedule to the Court Costs Act (Kostenverzeichnis zum Gerichtskostengesetz), as amended in 1980, prevailed as lex posterior over the Convention.   COMPLAINT           The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (e) of the Convention.           He submitted that a constitutional complaint (Verfassungs- beschwerde) would not have been an effective remedy and referred in this respect to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in the Akdogan case, as noted in the Commission's decision on admissibility in that case (No. 11394/85, Dec. 5.3.85, D.R. 46 p. 214).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 13 October and registered on 8 December 1989.           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 9 March 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. 14 446/88 R.R. gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland   zwischen   Herrn R.R., 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.   Die dem Beschwerdeführer in dem Bussgeldverfahren vor dem    Amtsgericht Heilbronn - 32 OWi 8088/86 - mit Nachtrags-    Kostenrechnung vom 6.   Mai 1988 in Rechnung gestellten    Dolmetscherkosten in Höhe von 322,40 DM werden erlassen.    Die vom Beschwerdeführer danach zuviel gezahlten 117,13 DM    werden ihm 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                                          Heilbronn, den     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. 14446/88 R.R. against the Federal Republic of Germany   between   Mr. R.R., 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 322.40 DM incurred by the applicant    in regulatory proceedings - 32 OWi 8088/86, supplementary bill    of costs of 6 May 1988 - before the Heilbronn District Court    shall be waived.   The resulting excess sum of 177.13 DM 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,                                            Heilbronn,     (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)