Cavusoglu v. the Federal Republic of Germany



Application No. 13591/88

by Yüksel CAVUSOGLU

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 11 October 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

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 7 January 1988

by Yüksel CAVUSOGLU against the Federal Republic of Germany and

registered on 5 February 1988 under file No. 13591/88;

Having regard to the Commission's decision of 14 March 1989 to

give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to

invite them to present before 2 June 1989 their observations in

writing on the admissibility and merits of the application;

Having regard to the Government's letter, enclosing a copy of

their letter to the applicant's representative with a draft agreement,

of 29 May 1989;

Having regard to the Government's letter of 23 June 1989

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 Turkish citizen born in 1942 and living at

Heilbronn. He is represented by Rechtsanwalt N. Wingerter, a lawyer

practising at Heilbronn.

The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.

By a regulatory fine order (Bussgeldbescheid) of 19 June 1985

the Labour Exchange (Arbeitsamt) of Heilbronn imposed on the applicant

a regulatory fine (Geldbusse) of 800 DM for infringing, as an

employer, Article 19 para. I no. 5 in conjunction with Article 229

para. I no. 2 of the Employment Promotion Act (Arbeitsförderungsgesetz).

On the applicant's objection (Einspruch) the District Court

(Amtsgericht) of Heilbronn fixed 22 May 1986 as date of the trial.

An interpreter was appointed for this hearing.

The Court again imposed a fine of 800 DM on the applicant and

a fine of 200 DM on his accomplice E. It also ruled that they had to

bear the costs of the proceedings.

On 6 August 1986 the Court Cashier's Office (Gerichtskasse)

fixed the costs to be paid by the applicant at 178 DM, of which

88 DM represented the applicant's share of the interpreter's fee of

176 DM.

On 27 May 1987 the applicant entered an objection (Erinnerung)

against the bill of costs to the extent that it included his share of

the interpreter's fee. He alleged a violation of Article 5 (sic)

para. 3 (e) of the Convention and relied on the Öztürk judgment of

21 February 1984 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 73).

On 15 September 1987 the District Court dismissed the objection

as unfounded under No. 1904 of the Schedule to the Court Costs Act

(Kostenverzeichnis zum Gerichtskostengesetz). It stated that the

Schedule, as amended in 1980 (BGBl I p. 1503), had entered into force

after the Convention and therefore prevailed over Article 6 para. 3.

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights could not nullify

domestic law.

On 10 December 1987 the applicant's appeal (Beschwerde)

was declared inadmissible by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of

Heidelberg. The Court, noting that the applicant contested his

obligation to pay his share - 88 DM - of the interpreter's fee,

found that the value of the subject matter of the appeal (Wert des

Beschwerdegegenstands) did not exceed 100 DM, as required for an

appeal under Article 5 para. 2, first sentence, of the Court Costs

Act.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 7 January and registered on

5 February 1988.

On 14 March 1989 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to present before 9 June 1989 their observations in writing on

the admissibility and merits of the application.

By a letter of 29 May 1989 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 23 June 1989 the Government

submitted the agreement reached between the parties.

The agreement reads as follows:

(German original)

"VEREINBARUNG

über das Individualbeschwerdeverfahren Nr. 13591/88

Yüksel Cavusoglu gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland

zwischen

Herrn Yüksel Cavusoglu, Bergstrasse 16 D, 7100 Heilbronn,

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 - 21 OWi 2315/85 b -

mit Kostenrechnung vom 17. Oktober 1988 in Rechnung gestellten

Dolmetschergebühren in Höhe von 88,- DM (achtundachtzig Deutsche

Mark) werden erlassen.

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 Der Betrag zu 2. wird an die Verfahrensbevollmächtigten des

Beschwerdeführers, Rechtsanwälte Norbert Wingerter, Volker Hohbach

u.a. überwiesen, die sich verpflichten, die Bundesregierung hinsicht-

lich 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 29. Mai 1989 Heilbronn, den

gez. Meyer-Ladewig gez. Wingerter

(Ministerialdirigent (Rechtsanwalt Wingerter)"

Dr. Meyer-Ladewig)

(English translation)

"AGREEMENT

concerning the proceedings relating to individual Application No. 13591/88

Yüksel Cavusoglu against the Federal Republic of Germany

between

Mr. Yüksel Cavusoglu, Bergstrasse 16 D, 7100 Heilbronn,

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 88 DM (eighty-eight Deutschmark) claimed

from the applicant in regulatory proceedings (Ref. 21 OWi 2315/85 b)

in a bill of costs of 17 October 1988 shall be waived.

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 sum referred to in paragraph 2. above shall be paid to the

applicant's representatives in the proceedings, MM. Norbert

Wingerter, Volker Hohbach and others, who undertake 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, 29 May 1989 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. They 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, necessitates a further examination of

the present application. It 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 Geschäftswertes bei

land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Betriebsübergaben und zur Änderung

sonstiger kostenrechtlicher Vorschriften, BGBl I p. 1083), amended

Nr. 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 President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)