ÖZTÜRK contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8544/7 9 Abdulbaki ()ZTIJRK v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Abdulbaki UZTÃ¼RK c/RÃPUBLIQUE FEDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 15 December 1981 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 15 dÃ©cembre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph 3 (e) of the Conventlon : Is this provision applicable to the appeal proceedings against an administrative fine in application of the German law (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz) concerning the decriminalisation of certain minor offences ? (Application declared admissible) . Arrlcle 26 of the Conventlon : This provision does not require prior recourse to a domestic remedy whose effectiveness only became apparent because of a development in the case-law subsequent to the facts .
Arllcle 6, paregrephe 3, B tt . e), de la Con v entlon : Cette disposition s'applique-t-elle Ã la procÃ©dure de recours contre le prononcÃ© d'une amende administrative en application de la loi allemande dite Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz, concernant la dÃ©criminalisation de certaines infractions mineures ? (RequÃªte dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable) . Arllcle 26 de la Conventlon : Cette disposition n'exige pas l'esercice prÃ©alable d'un recours interne dont l'efficacitÃ© n'est apparue qu'en raison d'une Ã©volution de la jurisprudence postÃ©rieure auz faits .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 70)
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 1934 and residing at Bad Rappenau-Heinsheim . In the proceedings before the Commission he is re-
-55-
presented by Rechtsanwalt Norbert Wingerter and Partners, lawyers in Heilbronn . Since 1964 the applicant works in a car factory in the Federal Republic of Germany . In 1969 he passed a driving test and was issued a German driving licence . On 27 Janua ry 1978 the applicant drove into a parked car and caused damage of approximately DM 5 000 .- to his and the other car whose owner informed the Neckarsulm police station of the accident . The policemen showed the applicant a notice by which he was informed, i .a . in the Turkish language, of the right to refuse to make any statement and to consult a lawyer . The applicant made use of this right . A traffic accident repo rt was then transmi tt ed by the police to the administrative authorities (Landratsamt) at Heilbronn .
By a notice of regulatory fine (Bussgeldbescheid) dated 6 April 1978 the administrative authorities at Heilbronn imposed a fine of DM 60 .- on the applicant on the ground that he had committed a road traffic offence as a result of careless driving . On 11 April 1978 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a n objection (Einspruch) against this decision and stated that he did not waive his right to a public hearing before a court .
In accordance with the provisions of the Contravention of Regulations Act (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz) the applicant's file was transmitted to the Public Prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft) at the Heilbronn Regional Court (Landgericht) . The prosecution authorities declared that they would not take part in any court proceedings . At the hearing of 3 August 1978 before the District Court (Amtsgericht) at Heilbronn the applicant withdrew his objection and the notice of fine became final .
By a bill for costs of the Heilbronn Cash Office (Gerichtskasse) the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings of DM 184 .70 . The costs included an amount of DM 63 .90 for interpreter's fees . On 4 October 1978 the applicant lodged an objection (Erinnerung) against the bill for costs . He complained of the imposition of interpreter's fees invoking Article 6 . paragraph 3 (e) of the Convention and referred to the Commission's report of 18 May 1977 in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc against the Federal Republic of Germany .
-56-
By a decision (Beschluss) of 25 October 1978 the Heilbronn District Court rejected the applicant's objection stating that the costs including the interpreter's fees were awarded against him in accordance with Article 464 .a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung)â¢ and Article 46 of the Contravention of Regulations Actâ¢' and that Article 6, paragraph 3 (e) of the Convention does not exclude that an accusedbe charged with interpreter's feesâ¢â¢' . The court costs, including the interpreter's fees, were paid by a legal costs insurance company with which the applicant had previously concluded a contract . Complalnts The applicant complains that he was ordered to pay the interpretation costs . He maintains that the proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act have to be considered as criminal proceedings with all the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention, including the right to the free assistance of an interpreter provided for in paragraph 3 (e) of that provision .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMAf1SSION The application was introduced on 14 February 1979 and registered on 16 February 1979 . On 13 July 1979 the Commission decided in accnrdance with Rule 42, paragraph 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure to give notice to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of the application and to invite them to submit observations in writing on its admissibility under Article 6, paragraph 3 (e) of the Convention . After having been granted two extensions of the original time-limit, the Government submitted their observations on 22 October 1980 . These observations were submitted to the applicant who was given the opportunity to submit his observations in reply . The applicant made use of this possibility on 22 April 1981 . On 14 May 1981 the Commission decided to invite the parties to an oral hearing on the admissibility and on the merits of the application in accordance with Rule 42, paragraph 3 (b) of the Rules of Procedure . The hearing was held on 15 December 1981 .
â¢ Article 464, paragraph 1 first sentence :"Costs of the proceedings am made up of the fees (Gebflhren) and expenses of the Treasury . " â¢â¢ In accordance with Article 46, paragraph 1, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable in proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act . â¢â¢â¢ This decision was given before the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc on 28 November 1978 .
- 57 -
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTH3 S The Governmen t In the Government's opinion the applicant has not exhausted the dontestic remedies at his disposal under German law, since he has failed to seize the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) with a constitutional appeal . With reference to the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights on 6 November 1980 in the Van Oosterwijck case the Government point out that in certain circuntstances it may happen that express reliance on the Convention before the national authorities constitutes the sole appropriate manner of raising before those authorities first, as is required by Article 26 , an issue intended, if need be, to be brought subsequently before the European review bodies . The rule of exhaustion is designed in principle to afford to States the opportunity to put right the violations alleged against them . The right to the free assistance of an interpreter is part of the right to a fair trial . The applicant could have invoked before the Federal Constitutional Court Articles 2 and 20 as well as Article 3, paragraph 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) . These provisions guarantee the right to the free development of the personality in connection with the principle of the rule of law and the right to equality before the law . It is true that the applicant's case did not seent to be of very great importance . It concerned the payment of a relatively small sum, namely DM 63 .90 . which the applicant was not obliged to pay himself since the costs of the proceedings . including the above amount for interpreter's fees were borne by his legal costs insurance company . It should be pointed out that the applicant had lived and worked for 14 years in the Federal Republic of Germany and was in the possession of a German driving licence for more than nine years when the proceedings before the Heilbronn District Court took place . In these circumstances the question may be asked whether the applicant is still entitled to allege a violation of Convention rights before the Commission . In any event if he considers that his case is of such importance he should first have given the Federal Constitutional Court the possibility to redress the alleged violation . After the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koe the Federal Constitutional Court has to a greater extent than before taken into consideration the question of interpreter's fees under the aspect of the right to a fair trial and the right to equality before the law which are guaranteed by the Basic Law . It is true that the above judgment was given by the European Court of Human Rights after the one month time-limit for the introduction of a constitutional appeal against the decision of the Heilbronn District Court had expired . However, in his objectio n
- 58 -
against the bill for costs the applicant had referred to the Commission's Report in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and KoÃ§ of 18 May 1977 . The reference to the jurisptudence of Convention organs would have been taken into account by the Federal Constitutional Court since in a decision of 10 June 1975 it held that a magisterial order (Strafbefehl) or a notice of regulatory fine in German, which does not contain any indication of appeal possibilities in a language which the foreigner concerned can understand, has to be considered, in the event of the non-observance of the time-limit, as having been given without any such indication . In that case the appellant had expressly invoked Article 6, paragraph 3 (e) of the Convention and the Federal Constitutional Court considered the appeal in the light of the right to a fair trial . It followi that in the present case the Federal Constitutional Court would not have charged the applicant with a fee on the ground that he had lodged an abusive appeal . A recent decision given by the Federal Constitutional Court on 23 June 1981 (Eurocontrol 1) shows that in the present case a constitutional appeal was not without sufficient prospects of success . Tiie Federal Constitutional Court expressed the view that when interpreting the Basic Law violations of international law should as far as possible be avoided or redressed if they result from an incorrect application or from a non-observance of international rules by German courts and if such violations would involve the international responsibility of the Federal Republic of Germany . The applicant having thus failed to make use of an effective remedy at his disposal under German law cannot be considered as having exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention . In any event the application has to be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae since the applicant was not "charged with a criminal offencr" within the meaning of Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention . Consequently the principle enunciated in the judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights on 28 November 1978 in the case of Luedicke, Betkacem and KoÃ§ cannot be applied in the present case . It may be recalled that in that case the Court held "that the right protected by Article 6 (3) (e) entails for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language of the court, the right to remive the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from him payment of costs thereby incurred" (Â§ 46) . It is true that in application NÂ° 1169/61 (Yearbook 6, pp . 520-590) the Commission had applied Article 6 of the Convention in proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act and rejected the application as manifestly ill-founded . However, the Commission had not examined the question to what extent the proceedings concerned could have been distinguished from criminal proceedings stricto sensa . Moreover, this decision cannot be considered as a
-59-
precedent since the examination of a concrete case by the Commission should as far as possible be limited to the issues raised by it (see Eur . Court H .R ., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Â§ 40) . The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that the concept of "criminal charge" is autonomous and has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention (case of Engel and others, judgment of 8 June 1976 . Â§ 81 with further references, and Deweer judgment, Â§ 42) . It draws the limits of the Convention States' free discretion either to classify a violation as a criminal offence or to impose punishment in a non-criminal manner where "the operation of the fundamental clauses of Articles 6 and 7 would be subordinated to their sovereign will" . The non-criminal penalties may "not improperly encroach upon the criminal" (Engel and others judgment, Â§ 81, sub-para . 5) . When determining whether the provision defining the offence charged counts as "criminal" within the meaning of Article 6 (3) of the Convention the Court has examined in the Engel and others case whether this provision belongs, according to the legal system of the respondent State, to criminal law, disciplinary law or both concurrently . In the present case the offence in question was an offence against the Contravention of Regulations Act which under the German legal system is not criminal law . The Contravention of Regulations Act of 1968 on the basis of which the regulatory fines proceedings were conducted against the applicant is based on the idea that not all legal provisions, which as commandments and prohibitions of public law are ensured by the threat of punishment, may be treated as criminal law (Strafrecht) . Rather, it is necessary to distinguish between criminal law (Kriminalstrafrecht) and non-criminal law for the enforcement of public order . This distinction has a long-standing tradition in German law although its delimitation in some respects has not always been clear-cut . As a result of the economic and social developments during the last two hundred years the administration of the State has extended to more and more spheres of life in order to ensure by statutory rules public order, defence against dangers, and welfare . In the course of this development, the greater the number of commandments and prohibitions and administrative acts required for the implementation of these tasks incumbent upon the administration, the more necessary became . in a liberal order of society, the restriction of the criminal law as the most incisive compulsory means available to the State to the punishment of criminal wrong . It has also become necessary to remove mere infractions of regulations from the criminal law and to devise the punishment of such infractions in proceedings especially designed for this administrative wrong . The same applies to petty criminality and certain offences which injure or place in jeopard y
-60-
persons, rights or interests protected by law (GefÃ hrdungstatbestÃ¼nde) and which are in the forefront of the protection of individual rights or of communal interests . The removal of such offences from the criminal procedure and their prosecution in simplified, summary regulatory fine proceedings has, of course, played a considerable part in relieving the courts of work which, properly speaking, should not be incumbent upon them, and it has thereby maintained their effectiveness . Maintaining good order in road traffic is a striking example of this development and of the necessity of dealing with a vast number of violations of the legal provisions concerning road traffic in an adequate, but effective way ; 90% of regulatory fines concern in fact road traffic violations . In the Federa dGlRepubicofrmanyt30,odraficensy djuicate as criminal wrongs . In regulatory fine proceedings, such as were applied to the applicant, annually far more than 4 million notices of regulatory fmes for road traffic violations and more than 13 million admonitions (Verwamungen) with admonitory fines (Verwamungsgeld) of between DM 2 and DM 40 are issued . As is shown by the annual statistics, in the cases of road traffic violations, in 41%n to 48% of all the cases regulatory fines up to DM40 are imposed, in a further 41% to 45% of cases, regulatory fines of between DM 41 and DM 100 are imposed . In all, the proportion of regulatory fines of up to DM 100 is between 86% and 89% . These figures indicate not only the proportion of trafiic violations dealt with as criminal offences on the one hand, and regulatory fines on the other, they also show clearly that in a democratic society, the mere transgression of regulatory law, the punishment of which is necessary to maintain public order and to avert danger, must not be described as a criminal wrong because otherwise a great part of the population would have to be regarded as criminal offenders which would mean their moral stigmatisation . However, the legislator is bound by the Basic Law which reserves the traditional central sphere of the administration of criminal law, in particular the punishment of violations of the rights founded in the Basic Law, to the criminal courts . In a decision of 16 July 1969 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held in particular that the central sphere of criminal law, in which the judges were called upon by Article 92 of the Basic Law without exception and exclusively to administer the law in order to produce a deterrent effect on other potential offenders, comprised all important offences . The sphere of illegal acts where a repressive administration of justice sufficed, comprised violations of the law which, according to the general concepts of the society, were not deemed (criminally) culpable, cases which were less blameworthy, which were distinguished from criminal offences by the degree of ethical unworthiness . The weight of an offence, the extent of social disapproval attribÃ»ted to it in the legislator's binding evaluation, usually could be taken only from the severity of punishment provided . It was only when one starte d
-61-
from a differentiating evaluation of the extent of the unworthiness of the various offences that the gradation of the criminal law penalties became understandable and justified . The Federal Constitutional Court contested the view that upon the conversion of criminal offences of road traffic law to offences under the Contravention of Regulations Act, the penalties did remain the same while merely their designations were changed . It was true that a criminal f-ine (Geldstrafe) and a non-criminal fine (Geldbusse) are equally detrimental to the finances of the person concerned . The difference between them, however, was that, according to general opinion, with the imposition of a criminal punishment there was attached a defamatory, authoritative judgment of condemnation on the offender's conduct, the accusation of a rebellion against the law of the land and the finding that this accusation was justified . Contrary to this, the non-criminal fine (Geldbusse) under the Contravention of Regulations Act was regarded and felt merely as an emphatic admonition of duty from which no appreciable impairment of the good character of the person concerned followed, even though it may burden him financially just as much as comparable criminal fine (Geldstrafe) . The regulatory penalty (Busse) lacked the seriousness of a punishment (Strafe) inflicted by the State (Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 16 July 1969, BVerfGE 27, 18 (28-33) . In the Government's view this jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court is in accordance with the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Engel and others in order to ensure that a person accused of a criminal offence may enjoy the fundamental guarantees provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention . It follows clearly from the differences which exist between the provisions of criminal law and the provisions of the Contravention of Regulations Act that the very nature of the offence in question is essentially non criminal in character . Furthermore the degree of severity of the penalty which the person concerned risks incurring under the Contravention of Regulations Act shows that regulatory fine proceedings are not in practice disguised criminal proceedings . Thus under the Contravention of Regulations Act the offender can only be given a pecuniary fine . Other penalties like the deprivation of liberty or a criminal fine cannot be inflicted . On the other hand, if the person concerned refuses to pay the fine, detention might be ordered for a period not exceeding six weeks . Such imprisonment is, however, not punitive but merely coercive, for he will be at once released if he consents to pay the fine or to inform the authorities of his financial situation . Only in one per cent of 170,000 or 220 .000 cases in which coercive detention has been ordered it is executed . In general the fine will be paid when the police appears with a warrant of arrest .
- 62 -
Furthermore, a regulatory fine cannot be replaced by imprisonment as it is possible in cases where a criminal fine has been imposed . While the criminal fine is imposed according to a daily fine system by which the number of units characterises the gravity of the wrong and the amount of each unit is determined by the offender's financial circumstances, the regulatory fine-in accordance with its different character-is not so split up into different components . It is true that, in addition to the seriousness of the contravention, the reproach to which the person concemed is exposed also determines the regulatory fine . However, since the regulatory fine is mainly directed toward the future observance of obligations and prohibitions, the assessment of the regulatory fines, especially in the lower range, may be made schematically, according to the various types of the contraventions, which appears to be indicated in the interest of equal treatment especially in cases of widespread contraventions such as traffic violations . Traffic offences can in principle be fined DM 1000 at the most . The comparatively small amount of the regulatory fine makes it possible not to attribute to the financial situation of the person concerned the same weight as in the case of the assessment of a criminal fine . Therefore, in the lower ranges of the regulatory fines the authorities do not have to clarify the financial situation of the person concerned . Consequently, an admonitory fine (Verwarnungsgeld) is determined according to a fixed catalogue, the admonitory fines catalogue (Verwarnungsgeldkatalog), which provides for fines between DM 20 and DM 40. Likewise, in cases of road traffic offences, the regulatory fines are fuced in accordance with the regulatory fines catalogues (Bussgeldkataloge) . The great mass of these contraventions (about 90%) is punished with regulatory fines not exceeding DM 100 . The ethical stigma connected with the final and binding criminal conviction upon a person is expressed especially by the entry of the conviction on his criminal record in the Federal Central Register (Bundeszentralregister) . Information of such entries is given in conduct certificates (FÃ¼hrungszeugnisse) which in many cases are required for submission to public authorities, for instance, in proceedings on an application for the granting of a licence . Moreover, a number of public authorities must be given information of the entry . Regulatory fines are not recorded in this Federal Central Register . Regulatory fines imposed for traffic violations in excess of a certain amount are recorded merely in a Traffic Central Register (Verkehrszentralregister) . This registration, however, serves only the purpose of road traffic law . lt is, therefore, not comparable with the entries in the Federal Central Register . Moreover, these registers are kept by different public authorities : The Federal Central Register in Berlin is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister of Justice, the Traffic Central Register in Flensburg under the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister of Transport .
-63-
There is a difference also as regards the limitation period . While the limitation period of prosecution, according to the maximum term of imprisonment provided for each offence, varies between 3 and 30 years (Art . 78 of the German Criminal Code), this limitation in the cases of offences against the Contravention of Regulations Act varies, according to the maximum regulatory fine, between 6 months and 3 years . Since in the cases of most traffic offences only a regulatory fine not exceeding DM 1000 may be imposed, prosecution is limited by lapse of time after 6 months, as a rule . This survey of the German legislation with regard to the legal and personal consequences in criminal and regulatory fine proceedings shows that there exists a considerable difference between the two . The regulatory fine lacks the seriousness of a criminal punishment . It is not substantially detrimental to the person concerned as can be the case even with a conviction for a smaller criminal offence . This view is in accordance with the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Engel and others where the Court held that solely charges come into the "criminal" sphere whose aims are the imposition of serious punishments involving deprivation of liberty . There are also important differences in the proceedings under criminal law and regulatory fine provisions . The notice of a regulatory fine is issued by an administrative authority which is also competent for the prosecution and imposition of penalties in cases of road traffic violations . The proceedings before the administrative authorities are divested of the formalities of c ri minal proceedings . Although there is no hearing, the facts have to be established ex ojficio and the person concerned has the right to be heard . Contrary to an indictment the notice of fine does not contain a charge with a criminal offence ; terms such as "person charged" (Angeschuldigter), "defendant" (Beschuldigter), or "accused" (Angeklagter) are not used in regulatory fine proceedings . The prosecution of offences under the Contravention of Regulations Act is in the reasonable discretion of the contpetent administrative authorities, not of the prosecution authorities of the criminal court . This rule is based on the consideration that the purpose pursued with a regulatory fine, i .e . to enforce a certain order, sometimes may be achieved in a different way, for instance, by an admonition, or by the threat of a prosecution if the act were to be repeated . Moreover it may be better achieved by a limited, but specially directed, prosecution of certain contraventions than by the duty to prosecute all contraventions .
-6Ã§-
In contrast to cri minal proceedings, in regulatory fines proceedings physical interference with the offender is permissible only to a very limited extent . Detention in an institution, arrest and prelimina ry custody, seizure of postal matters and telegrams, as well as requests for information on circumstances subject to the secrecy of the postal telecommunications se rv ice are inadmissible in the prosecution of offences under the Contravention of Regulations Act . Apart from a taking of a blood test and such other interventions, bodily examination is forbidden . Thus, in regulato ry fi ne proceedings the person concerned is never threatened with any substantial interference with his fundamental rights, in part icular with deprivation of liberty, apart from measures necessary for his identification . However, when an objection ( Einspruch) has been lodged against a notice of regulatory fine, the further proceedings take place befo re a cou rt in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Nevertheless, between c riminal proceedings and proceedings conceming regulato ry fines fundamental differences exist . Cases under the Contravention of Regulations Act a re generally dealt with by way of summa ry proceedings . Not criminal courts but special chambers decide . The public prosecutor is not obliged to take pa rt in the proceedings . This applies also to the person concemed, unless he has been ordered to appear in person . On the other hand he has a right to be present . The public prosecutor can also decide to discontinue the proceedings if for instance time limits have not been observed . He shall, however, take pa rt in the proceedings when the facts of a pa rticular case could constitute a cri minal offence . In such a case the judge has to inform the person concerned of that possibility . , The presence of the prosecutor is necessary if a person has not only commi tted an offence under the Contravention of Regulations Act but is at the same time accused of a criminal offence . These offences will be dealt with in the same proceedings . However, the penalty under the Contravention of Regulations Act will always be a regulato ry fine and will never constitute a sanction under c ri minal law . In cases in which both criminal and regulato ry fi ne proceedings are instituted against a person, the regulatory fi ne proceedings a re in general discontinued because of their minor impo rt ance compared with the criminal penal ty . An accused person may be acquitted of a criminal offence for lack of evidence . Nevert heless a regulato ry fi ne will be imposed if he has contravened a provision of the Contravention of Regulations Act . The court may also decide on the basis of written proceedings, unless the public prosecutor or the person concemed objects . In petty case when fine s
- 65 -
can be given amounting up to DM 200 an appeal against a cou rt decision is generally not possible . It follows from this examination of the regulato ry fine proceedings that they are administrative proceedings . The proceedings before a cou rt following an objection are more similar to administrative cou rt proceedings than to ordina ry criminal proceedings . A study of comparative law has shown that other European countrie s have no similar regulatory fine system . In Austria where regulatory fines can be given it is the competence of the administrative authorities and adminis . trative cou rts to deal with these kind of offences . Fu rt hermore it would not be justified to reintegrate offences of the Contravention of Regulations Act into the criminal law solely because of the question of interpreters' fees . That would run counter to the case of Dudgeon where the European Cou rt of Human Rights has found a violation of the Convention because a Member State had failed to decriminalise ce rtain acts which in other countries were not punishable any longer . Foreigners who live for a longer period in the Federal Republic of Germany and take part in road traf}ic should adapt themselves to a ce rt ain extent to the day to day life and to the language of that count ry . They cannot expect to find there the same living conditions as in their home count ry . The European Cou rt of Human Rights held in its judgment of 28 November 1978 in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc that it could not be excluded that the obligation for a convicted person to pay interpretation costs may have repercussions on the exercise of his right to a fair trial in particular by fear of financial consequences . In regulato ry fine proceedings the interpreter's fees may be higher than the fine . However, the interpreter's fees are less impo rt ant than the fees claimed by defence counsel . Consequently financial implications would not arise out of the interpreter's fees . There is a significant increase in the number of objections made in regulatory fine proceedings, in pa rt icular in cases where the person concerned is insured against the risk to pay legal fees . 60% of car drivers are insured with legal cost insurance companies which, as in the applicant's case, pay the costs of the proceedings including the interpreter's fees . The Government conclude that in the present case Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention is not applicable to the proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act and that the application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 27 ( 2) of the Conventio n
- 66 -
The applicant The applicant maintains that the obligation to pay the interpretation costs incuffed in the proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act was in breach of Article 6(7) (e) of the Convention . Not conversant with German, the applicant signed after the accident the Turkish translation of a declaration according to which the police had informed him of his rights and duties . Thereafter he went in the company of an interpreter to the office of his defence counsel . At the Heilbronn Distrid Court an interpreter was present until the end of the trial . Had the judge gained the impression that the applicant knew the German language sufficiently well in order to speak or understand the language used in court he would not have relied on the services of the interpreter . The fact that the applicant has passed a German driving test is no indication of his knowledge of German since the theoretical part of the test can be done in another language . There was no reason to seize the Federal Constitutional Court with the present case . This Court would have rejected a constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible . The applicant would even have run the risk of having to pay a fine on the ground that he had lodged an abusive constitutional appeal all the more so as he was represented by a lawyer . The branch of Contravention of Regulations provisions was introduced into German legal system after 1945 . Since the Middle Ages, many attempts have unsuccessfully been made to distinguish those breaches of law which are crimes from those which must be treated in another branch of the law of wrongs .
The Diet of the German Reich was of the opinion when issuing the Criminal Code of 1871 that there existed no clear distinction between acts which give rise to police prosecution and criminal acts . All illegal acts which were subject to punishment were classified as criminal offences . When the Convention entered into force a violation of road traffic provisions was a criminal offence . Before the Contravention of Regulations Act of 1968 came into force nobody would have thought not to apply Article 6 of the Convention to this kind of offence . There are no essential differences between proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act in connection with road traffic violations and criminal proceedings .
In this connection, the applicant refers to the competence of the prosecution authorities in regulatory fine proceedings, to the co-operation of these authorities with the administrative authorities, to the inclusion of offences under the Contravention of Regulations Act in the preparatory proceedings concerning a criminal offence, to the extension of an indictment to an offence under the Contravention of Regulations Act, to the proceedings following an objection against a notice of regulatory fine . Furthermore with regard to th e
- 67 -
close resemblance of criminal proceedings and regulatory fine proceedings uniform directives for both of these proceedings have been set up . However, even if there were substantial differences between regulatory fine proceedings and criminal proceedings Article 6 (3) of the Convention would be applicable . Article 46 (1) of the Contravention of Regulations Act provides that the general laws of criminal proceedings, in particular the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicature Act and the Juveniles' Court Act are applicable to regulatory fine proceedings . Article 6 of the Convention as a procedural provision and part of German domestic law is consequently also applicable in accordance with the above mentioned provision of the Contravention of Regulations Act . In accordance with Article 74 No . I of the Basic Law concuffent legislative powers shall extend inter alia to criminal law . In a decision of 16 July 1969 the Federal Constitutional Court held that these legislative powers do not only comprise criminal law in its traditional meaning but also regulatory fine provisions . In the Government's opinion it would be contrary to human rights to treat petty offences under the criminal law . However, until 1969 road traffic offences were criminal offences . This does not mean that until 1969 human rights were violated in the Federal Republic of Germany . Article 6(I) of the Convention was applicable and it is difficult to understand why this provision should not apply any longer . Apart from a simplification in the proceedings no substantial changes have been made . The Regional Court in Ansbach (NJW 1979, p . 2484) has decided that Article 6 of the Convention was applicable in regulatory fine proceedings . Whether or not an act was classified as a criminal or a purely regulatory offence depended on the current views of society and was not treated in the same way by the Member States to the pecuniary fine or a criminal penalty according to considerations of opportunity . However, Article 6 of the Convention had the purpose of guaranteeing a fair trial irrespective of the classification of an act as criminal or non criminal . The applicant concludes that he was the subject of "criminal charges" and Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention applied to the proceedings in his case .
THE LA W The applicant complains that the obligation to pay the interpretation costs, as imposed on him by the Heilbronn Cash Office and the Heilbronn District Court in proceedings under the Contravention of Regulations Act, was in breach of Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention which provides : "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minumum rights :
-68-
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court . " The Commission has first considered the respondent Government's submission that the applicant has never raised the complaint based on a violation of this provision before the Federal Constitutional Court . The Commission notes that, according to the respondent Government's observations, the Federal Constitutional Court examines questions of interâ¢ pretation in court proceedings in the light of the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed by the German Basic Law . They have mentioned in particular Article 2 in connection with Article 20 and Article 3 (3) of the Basic Law . These provisions guarantee the right to the free development of a person's personality in connection with the principle of the rule of law and the right to equality before the law . The Government have further submitted that, since the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of KÃ¼nig was given, the Federal Constitutional Court developed its jurisprudence and in particular since the judgment in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and KoC it dealt with questions relating to the appointment of an interpreter to a greater extent than before if the protection of basic rights was at stake . As to the present case the Commission recalls that on 25 October 1978 the Heilbronn District Court rejected the applicant's objection against the bill for costs issued by the Heilbronn Cash Office whereas the judgment in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Kov was given by the European Court of Human Rights on 28 November 1978, that is after the one month's time limit for the introduction of a constitutional appeal against the decision of the District Court had expired . The applicant would therefore not have been in a position to refer, in a constitutional appeal, to that judgment . Furthermore the Federal Constitutional Court by a decision of 9]uly 1975 had already rejected a constitutional appeal relating to the payment of interpretation costs on the ground that the appeal did not offer sufficient prospects of success . The Commission finds that the respondent Govemment have failed to show that at the time when the decision of the Heilbronn District Court was issued, a constitutional appeal would have been an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 26 of the Convention which the applicant would have been obliged to take . In these circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that the applicant must be considered as having complied with the requirement as to the examination of domestic remedies under Article 26 of the Convention . Having next examined the submissions of the parties relating to the question whether in the regulatory fine proceedings instituted against him the applicant was "charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention, the Commission finds that this case raise i
-69-
substantial questions of interpretation of that provision which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on a full examination of the merits . Furthermore, an examination of the case has disclosed no ground for declaring it inadmissible . For these reasons, and without prejudging in any way the merits of the case, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCT/ON )
EN FAIT Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par les parties, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant turc nÃ© en 1934 et rÃ©sidant Ã Bad Rappenau-Heinsheim . Devant la Commission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par MÂ° Norbert Wingerter et ses associÃ©s, avocats Ã Heilbronn . Depuis 1964, le requÃ©rant travaille dans une fabrique d'automobiles en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . En 1969 . il a passÃ© un examen de conduite et s'est vu dÃ©livrer un permis de conduire allemand . Le 27 janvier 1978, le requÃ©rant percuta avec son automobile une voiture en stationnement, causant un dommage d'environ 5 .000 DM Ã son vÃ©hicule et Ã l'autre voiture, dont le propriÃ©taire signala l'accident au commissariat de police de Neckarsulm . Les policiers montrÃ¨rent au requÃ©rant un texte l'informant, en langue turque notamment, de son droit de se refuser Ã toute dÃ©claration et de consulter un avocat . Le requÃ©rant fit usage de ce droit . Un constat d'accident fut alors transmis par la police aux autoritÃ©s administratives (Landratsamt) de Heilbronn . Par un prononcÃ© administratif (Bussgeldbescheid) en date du 6 avril 1978, les autoritÃ©s de Heilbronn infligÃ¨rent au requÃ©rant une amende de 60 DM pour infraction au Code de la route commise Ã la suite de la conduite imprudente d'un vÃ©hicule. Le 11 avril 1978, le requÃ©rant, reprÃ©sentÃ© par son avocat, iorma opposition (Einspruch) contre cette dÃ©cision et dÃ©clara ne pas renoncer Ã son droit de faire entendre sa cause publiquement devant un tribunal .
-70-
ConformÃ©ment aux dispositions de la loi sur les infractions administratives (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz), le dossier fut transmis au MinistÃ¨re public (Staatsanwaltschaft) prÃ¨s le tribunal rÃ©gional de Heilbronn (Landgericht) . Le parquet dÃ©clara qu'il ne participerait Ã aucune procÃ©dure judiciaire . A l'audience du 3 aoÃ»t 1978 devant le tribunal cantonal (Amtsgericht) de Heilbronn, le requÃ©rant retira son opposition et le prononcÃ© administratif acquit force de chose jugÃ©e . Par Ã©tat de frais du greffe du tribunal cantonal (Gerichtskasse) de Heilbronn, le requÃ©rant fut invitÃ© Ã payer les frais de la procÃ©dure, soit 184,70 DM, y compris les frais d'interprÃ¨te s'Ã©levant Ã 63,90 DM . Le 4 octobre 1978, le requÃ©rant forma opposition (Erinnerung) Ã cet Ã©tat de frais . 11 se plaignait d'avoir Ã supporter les frais d'interprÃ¨te et invoquait Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 6, paragraphe 3 e), de la Convention en se rÃ©fÃ©rant au rapport Ã©tabli par la Commission le 18 mai 1977 dans l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et KoÃ§ contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Par dÃ©cision (Beschluss) du 25 octobre 1978, le tribunal cantonal de Heilbronn rejeta l'opposition du requÃ©rant en dÃ©clarant que l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã©tait tenu de supporter les dÃ©pens, et notamment les frais d'interprÃ¨te, par application de l'article 464 (a) du Code allemand de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale (Strafprozessordnung)â¢ et de l'article 46 de la loi sur les infractions administrativesâ¢â¢ et que l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e) de la Convention n'emp@che pas de mettre les frais d'interprÃ¨te Ã la charge de l'accusÃ©*** . Les dÃ©pens, y compris les frais d'interprÃ¨te, furent acquittÃ©s par une compagnie d'assurance auprÃ¨s de qui le requÃ©rant avait souscrit un contrat de dÃ©fense et de recours .Griefs Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© sommÃ© de payer les frais d'interprÃ¨te . Il soutient que la procÃ©dure engagÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã la loi sur les infractions administratives doit Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale donnant ouverture Ã toutes les garanties de l'article 6 de la Convention, y compris le droit de se faire assister gratuitement d'un interprÃ¨te, prÃ©vu au paragraphe 3 (e) de cette disposition .
â¢ Article 464, pamgraphe 1, premiÃ©te phrase : . Les dÃ©pens sont constituÃ©s par les droits (Gebahren) et dÃ©penses du TrÃ©sor public . â¢â¢ ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 46, paragraphe 1, les dispositions du Code de procÃ©due pÃ©nale s'appliquent aux procÃ©dures engagÃ©es en vertu de la loi sur les infractions administratives . â¢â¢â¢ Cette dÃ©cision est antÃ©rieure Ã l'arrÃ©t rendu le 28 novembre 1978 par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et KoÃ§ .
-7(-
PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite le 14 fÃ©vrier 1979 et enregistrÃ©e le 16fÃ©vrier 197 9 Le 13 juillet 1979, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ©, confonnÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, paragraphe 2 (b) de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, de donner connaissance de la requÃªte au Gouvemement de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et d'inviter celui-ci Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© au regard de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e), de la Convention . AprÃ¨s avoir bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© de deux prorogation de dÃ©lai, le Gouvernement a prÃ©sentÃ© ses observations le 22 octobre 1980 . Elles ont Ã©tÃ© transmises au requÃ©rant . qui a eu la possibilitÃ© d'y rÃ©pondre, ce qu'il a fait le 22 avril 1981 . Le 14 mai 1981, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter les parties Ã une audience contradictoire sur la recevabilitÃ© et le bien-fondÃ© de la requÃªte, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, paragraphe 3 (b) du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur . L'audience a eu lieu le 15 dÃ©cembre 1981 .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIES Le Gouveruemen t Selon le Gouvemement, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition en droit allemand, puisqu'il n'a pas formÃ© un recours devant la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale (Bundesverfassungsgericht) . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'arrÃªt rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme le 6 novembre 1980 dans l'affaire Van Oosterwijck, le Gouvemement souligne qu'il peut arriver que, dans des circonstances particuliÃ¨res, l'invocation expresse de la Convention auprÃ¨s des autoritÃ©s nationales constitue l'unique maniÃ¨re appropriÃ©e de leur poser d'abord, comme le prescrit l'article 26, un problÃ¨me dont on entend saisir aprÃ¨s coup, au besoin, les organes europÃ©ens de contrÃ´le . La rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement a pour finalitÃ© de mÃ©nager en principe aux Etats la possibilitÃ© de redresser les manquements allÃ©guÃ©s Ã leur encontre . Le droit Ã l'assistance gratuite d'un interprÃ¨te fait partie du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . Le requÃ©rant aurait tout aussi bien pu invoquer devant la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale les articles 2 et 20 ainsi que l'article 3 (3) de la Loi fondamentale (Grundgesetz) . Ces dispositions garantissent le droit au libre Ã©panouissement de la personnalitÃ© en liaison avec le principe de la prÃ©Ã©minence du droit et le droit Ã l'Ã©galitÃ© devant la loi . Certes, l'affaire du requÃ©rant ne paraissait pas avoir une trÃ¨s grande importance : elle concernait le paiement d'une somme relativement modique, exactement 63,90 DM, que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas obligÃ© de payer lui-mÃªme puisque les dÃ©pens, y compris le montant prÃ©citÃ© des frais d'interprÃ¨te . seraient acquittÃ©s par l'assurance dÃ©fense et recours qu'il avait souscrite . I l
_72-
faudrait souligner que le requÃ©rant avait vÃ©cu et travaillÃ© pendant 14 ans en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et qu'il possÃ©dait un permis de condui re allemand depuis plus de neuf ans lorsque la procÃ©dure devant le t ribunal cantonal de Heilbronn a eu lieu . Dans ces conditions, on peut se demander s'il est toujours habilitÃ© Ã allÃ©guer devant la Commission une violation des droits que lui reconnaÃ®t la Convention . Au demeurant, s'il estime que son affaire a une telle imporlance, il aurait dÃ» saisir la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale pour faire remÃ©dier Ã la violation allÃ©guÃ©e . AprÃ¨s l'arrÃªt rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dan s l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et Ko Ã§ , la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a p ri s plus largement en considÃ©ration la question des frais d'interprÃ¨te comme aspect du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã© quitable et du droit Ã l'Ã©galitÃ© devant la loi, que garantit la Loi fondamentale . Bien sÃ»r, l'arrÃªt prÃ©citÃ© a Ã©tÃ© re ndu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme aprÃ¨s l'expiration du dÃ©lai d'un mois ptÃ©vu pour introduire un recours constitutionnel contre le jugement du t ri bunal cantonal de Heilbronn . Cependant, dans son opposition Ã l'ordonnance de frais, le re quÃ©rant s'Ã©tait rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© au rapport de la Commission dans l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et Ko Ã§ en date du 18 mai 1977 . La Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale aurait dÃ» tenir compte de la rÃ©fÃ© re nce Ã la ju ri sprudence des organes de la Convention puisque, dans un arrÃªt rendu par elle le 10 juin 1975, elle a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'une ordonnance ( Strafbefehl) ou un avis d'amende administrative rÃ©digÃ© en allemand et ne re nfermant aucune indication quant aux possibilitÃ©s d'appel dans une langue que l'Ã©tranger en question pouvait comp re nd re , devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©, en cas de tardivetÃ©, comme n'ayant fourni aucune indication de ce genre . Dans cette affai re -lÃ , l'appelant avait expressÃ©ment invoquÃ© l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e) de la Convention et la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a examinÃ© le pou rv oi Ã ]a lumiÃ¨re du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . Il en dÃ©coule que, dans la prÃ©sente affaire, la mÃªme Cour constitutionnelle n'aurait pas infligÃ© au requÃ©rant une amende pour fol appel . En effet, l'arrÃªt rÃ©cent de la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale, re ndu le 23 juin 1981 dans l'affaire Eurocontrol 1, montre qu'en l'espÃ¨ce un pourvoi constitutionnel n'aurait pas Ã© tÃ© dÃ©pourvu de chances de succÃ¨s . La Cour constitutionnelle a exp rimÃ© l'opinion qu'en interprÃ©tant la Loi fondamentale, il faut autant que possible Ã©viter ou redresser les violations du droit inte rn ational si elles dÃ©coulent d'une mauvaise application ou du non- respect des rÃ¨gles interna tionales par les tribunaux allemands et si de telles violations entraÃ®nent la responsabilitÃ© internationale de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Le requÃ©rant, n'ayant donc pas fait usage d'une voie de recours efficace Ã sa disposition en droit allemand, ne saurait Ãªt re considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant Ã©puisÃ© les recours inte rn es, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . Au demeurant, le Gouvernement estime que la re quÃªte doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme incompatible ra tione materiae avec la Convention, puisque le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas . accusÃ© ( d'une infraction pÃ©nale) â¢ au sensde l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e) de la Convention .
- 73 -
En consÃ©quence, le principe Ã©noncÃ© dans l'arrÃªt rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme le 28 novembre 1978 dans l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et KoÃ§ . ne saurait s'appliquer en l'espÃ¨ce . 11 faut rappeler qu'en cette affaire la Cour a dÃ©clarÃ© . que le droit protÃ©gÃ© par l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e), comporte, pour quiconque ne parle ou ne comprend pas la langue employÃ©e Ã l'audience, le droit d'Ãªtre assistÃ© gratuitement d'un interprÃ¨te sans pouvoir se voir rÃ©clamer aprÃ¨s coup le paiement des frais rÃ©sultant de cette assistance . (par . 46) . Il est exact qu'Ã propos de la requÃªte nÂ° 1169/61 (Annuaire 6 . pp . 520-590), la Commission a appliquÃ© l'article 6 de la Convention Ã une procÃ©dure se dÃ©roulant selon la loi sur les infractions administratives et rejetÃ© la requÃªte comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e . Cependant, la Commission n'avait pas, dans cette affaire, Ã examiner la question de savoir dans quelle mesu re la procÃ©dure en questi on pouvait se distinguer d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale st ricto sensu . Du reste, cett e dÃ©cision ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un prÃ©cÃ©dent, puisque la Commission doit autant que possible limiter son examen aux questions soulevÃ©es par le cas concret dont elle connaÃ®t (voir Cour eur . D .H ., Arr@t De Weer du 27 fÃ©vrier 1980, par. 40) . La Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a confirmÃ© que la notion d' Â« accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale revÃªt un caractÃ¨re autonome et qu'elle doit s'entendre au sens de la Convention (Affaire Engel et autres, ArrÃªt du 8juin 1976, par. 81 et rÃ©fÃ©rences complÃ©mentaires, et ArrÃªt De Weer, par. 42) . Elle trace les limites du libre pouvoir des Etats parties Ã la Convention soit de qualifier de pÃ©nale une infraction, soit d'infGger une sanction non pÃ©nale lorsque Â« le jeu des clauses fondamentales des articles 6 et 7 se trouverait subordonnÃ© Ã leur volontÃ© souveraine â¢ . Les sanctions non pÃ©nales ne peuvent pas . empiÃ©ter indÃ»ment sur le pÃ©nal . (ArrÃªt Engel et autres, par . 81, alinÃ©a 5) . Pour dÃ©cider si la disposition qui qualifie l'infraction fait de son auteur un - accusÃ© ., au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 3, de la Convention, la Cour a examinÃ© dans l'affaire Engel et autres si la disposition en question appartient, d'aprÃ¨s la technique juridique de l'Etat dÃ©fendeur, au droit pÃ©nal, au droit disciplinaire ou aux deux Ã la fois . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, l'infraction Ã©tait une infraction relevant de la loi sur les infractions administratives qui, selon la technique juridique allemande, ne relÃ¨ve pas du droit pÃ©nal . La loi de 1968 sur les infractions administratives, base de la procÃ©dure engagÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant, part de l'idÃ©e que les dispositions lÃ©gales de droit pubhe qui, Ã peine de sanctions, commandent ou interdisent, ne peuvent pas toutes Ãªtres traitÃ©es comme relevant du droit pÃ©nal (Strafrecht) . Il faut plutÃ´ t
- 74 -
distinguer, pour faire respecter l'ordre public, ce qui relÃ¨ve du droit pÃ©nal (Kriminalstrafrecht) de ce qui n'en relÃ¨ve pas . Cette distinction est une tradition qui remonte loin dans le droit allemand, mÃªme si elle n'a pas toujours Ã©tÃ© trÃ¨s nette Ã certains Ã©gards . Avec l'Ã©volution Ã©conomique et sociale de ces deux derniers siÃ¨cles, l'administration de l'Etat a gagnÃ© sur des domaines de plus en plus nombreux de l'existence, de faÃ§on Ã garantir, par voie de rÃ¨glements, l'ordre public, la protection des citoyens contre divers risques et le bien-Ã©tre de la population . Au cours de cette Ã©volution, plus le nombre des ordres, interdictions et actes de l'administration nÃ©cessaires pour mettre en o9uvre ces diffÃ©rentes tÃ¢ches incombant Ã l'administration s'est accru, plus il devenait nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© libÃ©rale, de restreindre le domaine du droit pÃ©nal pour faire de ce dernier le moyen de coercition le plus percutant dont dispose l'Etat pour sanctionner une infraction pÃ©nale . SimultanÃ©ment, il est devenu de plus en plus nÃ©cessaire de supprimer du droit pÃ©nal les simples infractions aux rÃ¨glements pour sanctionner ces infractions par des procÃ©dures spÃ©cialement conÃ§ues pour les infractions administratives . Il en va de mÃªme de la petite dÃ©linquance et de certaines infractions qui lÃ¨sent ou mettent en danger des personnes, des droits ou des intÃ©rÃªts protÃ©gÃ©s par la loi (Geflihrdungsstatbestiinde) et qui sont primordiaux pou .r la protection des droits de l'individu ou des intÃ©rÃªts de la collectivitÃ© . En faisant sortir ces infractions de la sphÃ¨re de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, et en poursuivant leurs auteurs selon une procÃ©dure simplifiÃ©e et sommaire d'amende administrative, on a bien sGr fortement contribuÃ© Ã soulager les tribunaux d'un travail qui ne doit pas, Ã proprement parler, leur incomber, et l'on a, par lÃ mÃªme, maintenu l'efficacitÃ© de la justice . Le maintien de l'ordre dans la circulation routiÃ¨re est un exemple frappant de cette Ã©volution et de la nÃ©cessitÃ© de rÃ©agir efficacement contre un grand nombre de violation des dispositions lÃ©gales relatives Ã la circulation routiÃ¨re ; 90 % des amendes administratives concernent en fait des infractions au Code de la route . En RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, quelque 300 .000 infractions routiÃ¨res font chaque annÃ©e l'objet d'une dÃ©cision judiciaire en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale . Dans les procÃ©dures d'amende administrative, comme celle qui a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e au requÃ©rant, plus de 4 millions de prononcÃ©s d'amende sont dÃ©livrÃ©s chaque annÃ©e pour des infractions au code de la route et plus de 13 millions d'avertissements (Verwarnungen) assortis d'amendes (Verwarnungsgeld) allant de 2 Ã 40 DM, sont lancÃ©s chaque annÃ©e . Comme le montrent les statistiques annuelles des infractions au code de la route, des amendes allant jusqu'Ã 40 DM sont infligÃ©es dans 41 Ã 48 % des cas et des amendes de 41 Ã 100 DM dans 41 Ã 45 % des autres cas . En tout la proportion d'amendes administratives pouvant aller jusqu'Ã 100 DM se situe entre 86 et 89 % . Ces chiffre s
-75-
indiquent non seulement la proportion d'infractions au code de la route traitÃ©es comme infractions pÃ©nales d'une part, ou administratives de l'autre, mais montrent aussi nettement que, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, le simple fait de transgresser un rÃ¨glement, qu'il faut certes sanctionner pour maintenir l'ordre public et prÃ©venir un danger, ne doit pas Ãªtre Ã©rigÃ© en infraction pÃ©nale, sinon il faudrait considÃ©rer comme des dÃ©linquants une grande partie de la population, ce qui les marquerait d'infamie . Cependant . le lÃ©gislateur est liÃ© par la Loi fondamentale qui rÃ©serve aux juridictions pÃ©nales le noyau traditionnel de l'administration du droit pÃ©nal, notamment la sanction des violations des droits inscrits dans la Loi fondamentale . Par un arrÃªt du 16 juBlet 1969, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale (Bundesverfassungsgericht) a dÃ©clarÃ© notamment que le noyau du droit pÃ©nal, domaine oÃ¹ les juges sont appelÃ©s, sans exception et exclusivement, Ã rendre la justice afin de dissuader les dÃ©linquants Ã©ventuels, englobe toutes les infractions importantes . RelÃ¨vent du domaine des actes contraires Ã la loi mais oÃ¹ une administration rÃ©pressive de la justice suffit, les violations du droit qui, selon les concepts gÃ©nÃ©raux de la sociÃ©tÃ©, ne sont pas pÃ©nalement rÃ©prÃ©hensibles, sont moins blÃ¢mables ou se distinguent des infractions pÃ©nales par leur degrÃ© d'indignitÃ© morale . Seule la gravitÃ© de la sanction prÃ©vue permet gÃ©nÃ©ralement de juger du poids d'une infraction et de l'Ã©tendue de la dÃ©sapprobation que la sociÃ©tÃ© y attache dans l'apprÃ©ciation contraignante faite par le lÃ©gislateur . Ce n'est qu'en partant d'une Ã©valuation diffÃ©renciÃ©e de l'ampleur de l'indignitÃ© des diverses infractions que la gradation des sanctions pÃ©nales se comprend et se justifie . La Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a rejetÃ© l'idÃ©e que la dÃ©criminalisation des infractions routiÃ¨res en infractions administratives revenait Ã conserver la sanction de l'infraction en ne modifiant que sa qualification . Certes, amende pÃ©nale (Geldstrafe) et amende administrative (Geldbusse) ont financiÃ¨rement le mÃªme effet pour le contrevenant . NÃ©anmoins, elles se distinguent en ce sens que, gÃ©nÃ©ralement, infliger une sanction pÃ©nale suppose que l'on porte un jugement sÃ©rieux et infamant condamnant le comportement du contrevenant accusÃ© d'infraction Ã la loi interne et que l'on Ã©tablisse le bien-fondÃ© de cette accusation . Au contraire, infliger une amende administrative (Geldbusse) au titre de la loi sur les infractions administratives est considÃ©rÃ© simplement comme un moyen d'insister sur une obligation qui n'emporte pas critique grave quant Ã la personnalitÃ© du contrevenant, mÃªme si les consÃ©quences financiÃ¨res de l'infraction peuvent Ãªtre tout aussi graves que celles attachÃ©es Ã une amende pÃ©nale (Geldstrafe) . La sanction administrative (Busse) n'a pas la gravitÃ© d'une sanction pÃ©nale (Strafe) infligÃ©e par l'Etat (arrÃªt de la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale du 16 juillet 1969, BVer(GE 27, 18 (28-33) . Aux dires d u
- 76 -
Gouvernement, la jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale est conforme aux principes posÃ©s par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire Engel et autres pour veiller Ã ce qu'un accusÃ© puisse bÃ©nÃ©ficier des garanties fondamentales prÃ©vues aux articles 6 et 7 de la Convention . Il dÃ©coule manifestement des diffÃ©rences entre les dispositions du droit pÃ©nal et celles de la loi sur les infractions administratives que l'infraction en question est fondamentalement de nature non pÃ©nale . . Du reste, le degrÃ© de gravitÃ© de la sanction que l'intÃ©ressÃ© encourt en vertu de la loi sur les infractions administratives montre bien que la procÃ©dure y affÃ©rente n'est pas en rÃ©alitÃ© une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale dÃ©guisÃ©e . En effet, selon la loi sur les infractions administratives, le contrevenant ne peut se voir infliger qu'une amende pÃ©cuniaire, Ã l'exception d'autres peines comme la privation de libertÃ© ou l'amende pÃ©nale . D'un autre cÃ´tÃ©, si l'intÃ©ressÃ© refuse d'acquitter l'amende sa dÃ©tention peut Ãªtre ordonnÃ©e pour une pÃ©riode de six semaines au plus . Cet emprisonnement n'a cependant pas un caractÃ¨re punitif mais simplement coercitif, puisque l'intÃ©ressÃ© sera immÃ©diatement libÃ©rÃ© s'il consent Ã payer l'amende ou Ã informer les autoritÃ©s de sa situation financiÃ¨re . Sur 170 .000 ou 200 .000 cas, 1% seulement entraine exÃ©cution de cette contrainte par corps . D'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, le contrevenant paie l'amende lorsque la police se prÃ©sente chez lui, munie d'un mandat d'arrÃªt . Au surplus, l'amende administrative ne peut pas Ãªtre remplacÃ©e par un emprisonnement comme c'est le cas d'une amende pÃ©nale . En outre, l'amende pÃ©nale est infligÃ©e selon un systÃ¨me d'amendes de caractÃ¨re journalier, selon lequel le nombre d'unitÃ©s caractÃ©rise la gravitÃ© de l'infraction et le montant de chaque unitÃ© dÃ©pend de la situation fininciÃ¨re de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . L'amende administrative, elle, est de nature diffÃ©rente et n'est pas ainsi scindÃ©e en diffÃ©rentes composantes . Certes, outre la gravitÃ© de la contravention, le reproche auquel le contrevenant s'expose dÃ©termine, lui aussi, le montant de l'amende administrative . Cependant, cette amende vise surtout Ã faire respecter Ã l'avenir obligations et interdictions . Aussi l'Ã©valuation des amendes administratives, notamment dans les catÃ©gories infÃ©rieures, peut-elle Ãªtre schÃ©matiquement fonction des diffÃ©rentes catÃ©gories de contraventions, ce qui semble aller dans le sens de l'Ã©galitÃ© de traitement des auteurs de contraventions trÃ¨s courantes, les infractions routiÃ¨res par exemple . Les infractions au code de la route sont passibles, en principe, d'une amende de 1 000 DM au maximum . Le montant relativement faible de l'amende administrative permet de ne pas attribuer Ã la situation financiÃ¨re de l'intÃ©ressÃ© le mÃªme poids que lorsqu'il s'agit de fixer le montant d'une amende pÃ©nale . Dans les catÃ©gories infÃ©rieures des amendes administratives, les autoritÃ©s n'ont donc pas Ã prÃ©ciser la situation financiÃ¨re du contrevenant . En consÃ©quence, l'amende d'avertissement (Verwarnungsgeld) est fixÃ©e selon u n
-77_
catalogue (Verwamungsgeldkatalog) prÃ©voyant une Ã©chelle d'amendes entre 20 et 40 DM . De mÃªme, pour les infractions au code de la route, les amendes sont fixÃ©es en fonction d'un catalogue d'amendes administratives (Bussegeldkatalog) . La grande majoritÃ© de ces contraventions (90 % environ) sont passibles d'amendes administratives n'excÃ©dant pas 100 DM . La flÃ©trissure morale qui s'attache Ã un individu frappÃ© d'une condamnation pÃ©nale passÃ©e en force de chose jugÃ©e se traduit notamment par l'inscription de la condamnation sur son casier judiciaire, au Registre central fÃ©dÃ©ral (Bundeszentralregister) . Ce genre d'informations figure sur les certificats de moralitÃ© (FÃ¼hrungszeugnisse), trÃ¨s souvent exigÃ©s par les pouvoirs publics, par exemple pour l'octroi d'une licence . En outre, bon nombre d'autoritÃ©s publiques doivent Ãªtre informÃ©es de cette inscription au casier judiciaire . Par contre, les amendes administratives ne sont pas transcrites sur ce Registre central fÃ©dÃ©ral . Les amendes administratives infligÃ©es pour infractions au code de la route sont simplement, au-delÃ d'un certain montant, inscrites au Registre central de la circulation (Verkehreentralregister) . Cependant, cet enregistrement ne sert qu'Ã des fins touchant au droit de la circulation routiÃ¨re et ne saurait se comparer aux inscriptions sur le Registre central fÃ©dÃ©ral . D'ailleurs, ces deux registres sont tenus par des instances diffÃ©rentes : le Registre central fÃ©dÃ©ral Ã Berlin est sous la juridiction du Ministre fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Justice, alors que le Registre central de la circulation routiÃ¨re Ã Flensburg relÃ¨ve du Ministre fÃ©dÃ©ral des Transports . Il existe aussi une diffÃ©rence en matiÃ¨re de prescription : le dÃ©lai de prescription des infraction pÃ©nales, fixÃ© en fonction de la peine maximale de prison prÃ©vue pour chaque type d'infraction, varie de trois Ã trente ans (art . 78 du Code pÃ©nal allemand) . Dans le cas des infractions administratives, le dÃ©lai prÃ©vu pour l'amende maximum varie entre six mois et trois ans . Etant donnÃ© que . pour la plupart des infractions au Code de la route, seule une amende administrative infÃ©rieure Ã 1 000 DM peut Ãªtre infligÃ©e, le dÃ©lai de prescription est en gÃ©nÃ©ral limitÃ© Ã six mois . Ce survol de la lÃ©gislation allemande sur les consÃ©quences juridiques et personnelles des poursuites pÃ©nales et administratives montre qu'il existe des diffÃ©rences importantes entre les deux types d'amendes . L'amende administrative n'a pas la gravitÃ© d'une sanction pÃ©nale et n'est pas rÃ©ellement prÃ©judiciable Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© comme peut l'Ã©tre une condamnation prononcÃ©e pour une infraction pÃ©nale, mÃ©me lÃ©gÃ¨re . Ce point de vue est conforme aux constatations de l'arrÃªt Engel et autres, rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, qui dÃ©clare que les seules accusations relevant bien de la . matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale - sont celles tendant Ã l'infliction de lourdes peines privatives de libertÃ© . D'importantes diffÃ©rences sÃ©parent Ã©galement la procÃ©dure affÃ©rente aux affaires pÃ©nales et celle relative aux amendes administratives .
- 78 -
La notification d'une amende administrative est faite par une autoritÃ© administrative, compÃ©tente Ã©galement pour engager des poursuitÃ©s et infliger des sanctions en cas d'infraction au Code de la route . La procÃ©dure devant les instances administratives n'a pas le caractÃ¨re 1 formel d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Bien qu'il n'y ait pas d'audience, les fait sdoiventÃªrÃ©abl'fcintresÃ©aldo'Ãªntu . Contrairement Ã l'acte d'ac usation, le prononcÃ© d'amende ne comport e pas une accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale ; la procÃ©dure de l'amende administrative n'emploie pas de termes comme â¢ inculpÃ© â¢(Angeschuldigter), â¢ accusÃ© . ; (Beschuldigter), ou . prÃ©venu . (Angeklagter) . La poursuite des contrevenants Ã la loi sur les infractions administratives est laissÃ©e Ã la discrÃ©tion raisonnable des instances administratives compÃ©tentes, et non Ã celle des organes de poursuites devant les tribunaux pÃ©naux . Cette rÃ¨gle part de l'idÃ©e que le but recherchÃ© par une amende administrative, Ã savoir faire respecter un certain ordre, peut parfois Ãªtre atteint de maniÃ¨re diffÃ©rente, par exemple par un avertissement ou une menace de poursuite en cas de rÃ©cidive . Il se peut du reste que le but soit mieux atteint par des poursuites visant spÃ©cialement certaines contraventions plutBt que par l'obligation de poursuivre tous les contrevenants . Contrairement Ã ce qui se passe en procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, la procÃ©dure des amendes administratives n'autorise que trÃ¨s rarement les atteintes Ã la libertÃ© physique du contrevenant . L'internement, l'arrestation et la garde Ã vue, l'interception de communications postales et tÃ©lÃ©graphiques, ainsi que les demandes d'information sur des faits relevant du secret du Service des Postes et TÃ©lÃ©communications, sont irrecevables lorsqÃ» il s'agit de poursuivre des contrevenants Ã la loi sur les infractions administratives . Hormis les prÃ©lÃ¨vements sanguins et autres interventions de ce genre, les examens corporels sont interdits . Dans la procÃ©dure relative Ã une amende administrative, l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'est donc jamais menacÃ© d'une atteinte substantielle Ã ses droits fondamentaux, par privation de libertÃ© notamment, et ne s'expose qu'aux mesures nÃ©cessaires Ã son identification . Aussi la protection des garanties de la Convention n'est-elle pas requise . . Cependant, lorsqu'une opposition (Einspruch) a Ã©tÃ© formÃ©e contre un prononcÃ© d'amende administrative, la procÃ©dure qui suit se dÃ©roule alors devant un tribunal, conformÃ©ment aux dispositions du Code de procÃ©dure . Il n'en demeure pas .moins que des diffÃ©rences fondamentales sÃ©parent la procÃ©dure devant un tribunal pÃ©nal de celle qui se dÃ©roule devant un tribunal Ã propos d'une amende administrative . D'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, les affaires concernant des infractions administratives sont jugÃ©es selon une procÃ©dure sommaire et ce ne sont pas les tribunaux pÃ©naux qui dÃ©cident mais des chambres spÃ©ciales . Le ministÃ¨re
_7q-
public n'est pas tenu de participer Ã la procÃ©dure . Il en va de mÃªme de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, Ã moins qu'il n'ait Ã©tÃ© citÃ© Ã comparaÃ®tre en personne . En revanche, l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã le droit d'assister Ã l'audience . Le ministÃ¨re public peut Ã©galement dÃ©cider l'abandon des poursuites, en cas d'inobservation des dÃ©lais par exemple . Il doit nÃ©anmoins participer Ã la procÃ©dure lorsque les faits de la cause peuvent constituer une infraction pÃ©nale, auquel cas le juge doit informer l'intÃ©ressÃ© de cette possibilitÃ© . La prÃ©sence du ministÃ¨re public est nÃ©cessaire si l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'a pas seulement commis une infraction administrative mais aussi une infraction pÃ©nale . L'une et l'autre seront examinÃ©es au cours de la mÃªme procÃ©dure . Cependant, la sanction infligÃ©e au titre de la loi sur les infractions administratives sera toujours une amende administrative et n'aura jamais le caractÃ¨re d'une sanction pÃ©nale . Lorsqu'une procÃ©dure Ã la fois pÃ©nale et administrative est engagÃ©e contre un individu, les poursuites administratives sont en gÃ©nÃ©ral abandonnÃ©es en raison de leur importance mineure par rapport Ã la sanction pÃ©nale . Un accusÃ© peut Ãªtre acquittÃ© d'une infraction pÃ©nale faute de preuves . NÃ©anmoins, une amende administrative lui sera infligÃ©e s'il a contrevenu Ã une disposition de la loi sur les infractions administratives . Le juge peut Ã©galement statuer sur la base d'une procÃ©dure Ã©crite, sauf si le ministÃ¨re public ou l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã©lÃ¨ve des objections . Dans les affaires de peu d'importance oÃ¹ l'amende infligÃ©e ne peut jamais dÃ©passer 200 DM, la dÃ©cision du juge est gÃ©nÃ©ralement sans appel . Il dÃ©coule de cet examen que la procÃ©dure relative aux amendes administratives revÃªt un caractÃ¨re administratif . La procÃ©dure suivie devant un tribunal lorsqu'une opposition a Ã©tÃ© formÃ©e ressemble davantage Ã celle d'un tribunal administratif qu'Ã une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale de droit commun . Une Ã©tude de droit comparÃ© montre que tous les pays europÃ©ens ne disposent pas d'un systÃ¨me analogue d'amendes administratives . En Autriche, oÃ¹ des amendes administratives peuvent Ãªtre infligÃ©es, ce sont les autoritÃ©s et les juridictions administratives qui ont Ã connaÃ®tre de ce type d'infractions . Par ailleurs, il ne serait pas justifiÃ© de rÃ©intÃ©grer les infractions administratives dans le droit pÃ©nal pour la seule question des frais d'interprÃ¨te . Ceci irait Ã l'encontre de l'affaire Dudgeon, oÃ¹ la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a conclu Ã une violation de la Convention parce qu'un Etat membre n'avait pas dÃ©criminalisÃ© certains actes qui ne sont plus punissables dans d'autres pays europÃ©ens . Les Ã©trangers qui rÃ©sident depuis assez longtemps en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et qui participent Ã la circulation routiÃ¨re doivent s'adapter dans une certaine mesure Ã la vie quotidienne et Ã la langue du pays . Ils n e
- 80 -
sauraient s'attendre Ã trouver en Allemagne les mÃªmes conditions d'existence que dans leur pays d'origine . La Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a dÃ©clarÃ© dans son arrÃªt du 28 novembre 1978 . rendu dans l'affaire Luedicke, BelkaÃ§em et KoÃ§, qu'on ne saurait exclure que l'obligation pour le condamnÃ© de rÃ©gler les frais d'interprÃ©te se rÃ©percute sur l'exercice de son droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable, notamment par la crainte des consÃ©quences financiÃ¨res . Certes, dans une procÃ©dure concernant une amende administrative, les frais d'interprÃ¨te peuvent Ãªtre plus Ã©levÃ©s que le montant de l'amende mais moins cependant que les honoraires rÃ©clamÃ©s par l'avocat . Aussi les consÃ©quences financiÃ¨res ne sauraient-elles provenir des frais d'interprÃ¨te . On note un accroissement important du nombre des oppositions formulÃ©es dans les procÃ©dures d'amende administrative, surtout lorsque l'intÃ©ressÃ© a souscrit une assurance dÃ©fense et recours . Or, 60 % des conducteurs d'automobiles sont assurÃ©s contre ce risque auprÃ¨s de compagnies qui, comme en l'espÃ¨ce, se chargent des frais de procÃ©dure, y compris des frais d'interprÃ¨te . Le Gouvernement en conclut qu'en l'espÃ¨ce, l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e), de la Convention n'est pas applicable Ã la procÃ©dure se dÃ©roulant conformÃ©ment Ã la loi sur les infractions administratives et que la requÃªte est donc, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention . Le requÃ©ran t Le requÃ©rant soutient que l'obligation de payer les frais d'interprÃ¨te dans la procÃ©dure engagÃ©e contre lui au titre de la loi sur les infractions administratives Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 3(e), de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant, Ã qui la langue allemande n'est pÃ s familiÃ¨re, signa aprÃ¨s l'accident la traduction en turc d'une dÃ©claration selon laquelle la police l'avait dÃ»ment informÃ© de ses droits et obligations . Peu aprÃ¨s, i] se rendit, en compagnie d'un interp`dte, au bureau de son avocat . Devant le tribunal cantonal de Heilbronn, un interprÃ¨te l'assista aussi jusqu'Ã la fin du procÃ¨s . Si le juge avait eu l'impression que le requÃ©rant connaissait suffisamment l'allemand pour parler ou comprendre la langue utilisÃ©e Ã l'audience, il n'aurait pas fait appel aux services de l'interprÃ¨te. Le fait que le requÃ©rant a passÃ© un examen de conduite automobile en Allemagne n'indique rien sur sa connaissance de l'allemand puisque la partie thÃ©orique de l'examen peut se dÃ©rouler dans une autre langue . Le requÃ©rant n'avait pas de raison, en l'espÃ¨ce, de saisir la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale, qui aurait d'ailleurs rejetÃ© un pourvoi constitutionnel comme manifestement mal fondÃ© ou comme irrecevable . Le requÃ©rant aurait mÃªme risquÃ© de payer une amende pour fol appel, d'autant qu'il Ã©tait reprÃ©sentÃ© par un avocat . " .
-81-
I .es dispositions sur les infractions administratives ont Ã©tÃ© introduites dans le systÃ¨me juridique allemand aprÃ¨s 194S . Depuis le Moyen-Ã¢ge, de nombreuses tentatives ont Ã©tÃ© faites, sans succÃ¨s, pour distinguer les violations qui constituent des crimes et dÃ©lits de celles qui doivent relever d'une autre partie du droit des infractions . Lors du vote du Code pÃ©nal de 1871, la DiÃ¨te du Reich allemand estima qu'il n'y avait pas de distinction nette entre les actes donnant lieu Ã poursuites par la police et les actes dÃ©lictueux . Tous les actes contraires Ã la loi et passibles de sanctionsfurent donc classÃ©s parmi les infractions pÃ©nales . Lorsque la Convention est entrÃ©e en vigueur, une violation des dispositions du Code de la route Ã©tait une infraction pÃ©nale . Avant l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la loi de 1968 sur les infractions administratives, personne n'aurait songÃ© Ã ne pas appliquer l'article 6 de la Convention Ã ce type d'infractions . Il n'existe pas de diffÃ©rence fondamentale entre une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale et une procÃ©dure se dÃ©roulant conformÃ©ment Ã la loi sur les infractions administratives en liaison avec une infraction au Code de la route . A cet Ã©gard, le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã la compÃ©tence des organes de poursuite dans une procÃ©dure concernant les amendes administratives, Ã la coopÃ©ration de ces organes avec l'administration, Ã l'inclusion des violations de la loi sur les infractions administratives dans l'information prÃ©paratoire ouverte en cas d'infraction pÃ©nale, Ã l'extension de l'acte d'accusation lorsqu'il s'agit d'une infraction administrative, Ã la procÃ©dure qui suit l'opposition formulÃ©e contre un avis d'amende administrative . Du reste, en raison de la ressemblance Ã©troite de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale et de la procÃ©dure concernant une infraction administrative, des directives uniformes ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablies pour l'une et l'autre . Cependant, mÃªme s'il existait des diffÃ©rences substantieues entre les deux procÃ©dures, l'article 6, paragraphe 3, de la Convention serait nÃ©anmoins applicable . En effet, selon l'article 46 (1) de la loi sur les infractions administratives, s'appliquent les dispositions gÃ©nÃ©rales de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, notamment le Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, la loi d'organisation judiciaire et la loi sur les tribunaux pour enfants . Aussi, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article susmentionnÃ© . l'article 6 de la Convention, disposition de procÃ©dure qui fait partie du droit interne allemand, est-il applicable ? ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 74, paragraphe 1 de la Loi Fondamentale, les pouvoirs lÃ©gislatifs concurrents s'Ã©tendent notamment au droit pÃ©nal . Par un arrÃ©t rendu le 16 juillet 1969, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a dÃ©clarÃ© que ces pouvoirs lÃ©gislatifs ne portent pas seulement sur le droit pÃ©nal au sens traditionnel mais Ã©galement sur les dispositions concernant les amendes administratives . Selon le Gouvernement, il serait contraire aux droits de l'homme de faire relever les infractions mineures du droit pÃ©nal . Cependant, le requÃ©rant sou-
- 82-
ligne que, jusqu'en 1969, les infractions au Code de la route avaient un caractÃ¨re pÃ©nal, ce qui ne veut pas dire que jusqu'alors les droits de l'homme Ã©taient enfreints en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . L'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention leur Ã©tait donc applicable et on voit mal pourquoi il ne le serait plus maintenant . Hormis une simplification de la procÃ©dure, la loi n'a apportÃ© aucune modification substantielle . Le tribunal rÃ©gional d'Anspach (NJW 1979, p . 24-84) a dÃ©cidÃ© que l'article 6 de la Convention Ã©tait applicable Ã la procÃ©dure concernant les amendes administratives . Qu'un acte soit qualifiÃ© d'infraction pÃ©nale ou d'infraction purement administrative dÃ©pend des conceptions sociales du moment et la question reÃ§oit une rÃ©ponse diffÃ©rente selon les Etats membres parties de la Convention . Le lÃ©gislateur sanctionne le comportement humain en infligeant une amende ou une sanction pÃ©nale en fonction de considÃ©ration d'opportunitÃ© . Cependant l'article 6 de la Convention vise Ã garantir un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable indÃ©pendamment de la qualification, pÃ©nale ou non, d'un fait de l'homme . Le requÃ©rant en conclut qu'il a bien fait l'objet d'une accusation pÃ©nale et que l'article 6, paragraphe 3(e), de la Convention s'applique Ã la procÃ©dure le concernant
T .ENDROI Le requÃ©rant se plaint que l'obligation de payer les frais d'interprÃ¨te, que lui ont imposÃ©e le greffe de Heilbronn et le tribunal cantonal de Heilbronn dans une procÃ©dure rÃ©gie par la loi sur les infractions administratives, Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 3 (e), de la Convention, aux termes duquel : . Tout accusÃ© Ã droit notamment :
(e) se faire assister gratuitement d'un interprÃ¨te s'il ne comprend pas la langue employÃ©e Ã l'audience . â¢ La Commission a d'abord examinÃ© le moyen soulevÃ© par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur selon lequel le requÃ©rant n'a jamais fait valoir devant la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale un grief tirÃ© de la violation de cette disposition . La Commission reldve que, selon les observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale examine les questions relatives Ã l'assistance d'un interprÃ¨te dans une procÃ©dure judiciaire Ã la lumiÃ¨re du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable, droit garanti par la Loi Fondamentale allemande . Le Gouvernement a mentionnÃ© notamment l'article 2, en liaison avec les articles 20 et 3 (3) de la Loi Fondamentale . Ces dispositions garantissent le droit au libre Ã©panouissement de la personnaGtÃ©, en liaison avec le principe de la prÃ©Ã©minence du droit et du droit Ã l'Ã©galitÃ© devant la loi . Le Gouvemement a fait valoir en outre que, depuis l'arrÃ©t rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne de s
-83-
Droits de l'Homme dans l'Affaire Koenig, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a dÃ©veloppÃ© sa ju ri sprudence . Depuis l'arrÃªt rendu dans l'Affaire Luedicke, BelkaÃ§em et KoÃ§, elle a notamment examinÃ© les questions relatives Ã la dÃ©signation d'un interprÃ¨te avec plus d'ampleur qu'auparavant si la protection de droits fondamentaux se trouvait en jeu . Sur le cas d'espÃ¨ce, la Commission rappelle que, le 25 octob re 1978, le t ri bunal cantonal de Heilbronn a rejetÃ© l'opposition formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant contre l'ordonnance de frais Ã©mise par le greffe de Heilbronn . Or, l'arrÃªt Luedicke, BelkaÃ§em et KoÃ§ a Ã©tÃ© rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme le 28 novembre 1978, soit postÃ© rieurement Ã l'expiration du dÃ©lai d'un mois prÃ©vu pour former un recours constitutionnel contre la dÃ©cision du t ri bunal cantonal . Le re quÃ©rant n'aurait donc pas Ã©tÃ© en mesure d'invoquer cet arrÃªt Ã l'appui d'un recours constitutionnel . De plus, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a dÃ©jÃ rejetÃ©, par un arrÃªt du 9 juillet 1975, un recours re latif au paiement des frais d'interprÃ©tation, au motif qu'il n'avait pas suffisamment de chance de succÃ¨s . La Commission estime que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a pas montrÃ© qu'au moment de l'arrÃªt rendu par le tri bunal cantonal de Heilbronn, un recours constitutionnel aurait Ã©tÃ©, au sens de l'a rticle 26 de la Convention, un recours effectif que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait tenu d'exercer. Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que le requÃ©rant doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recou rs inte rn es posÃ©e Ã l'art icle 26 de la Convention . La Commission a ensuite examinÃ© l'argumentation des parties sur le point de savoir si, dans la procÃ©dure d'amende administra tive engagÃ©e contre lui, le requÃ©rant Ã© tait sous le coup d'une - accusation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale â¢, au sens de l'article 6 . paragraphe 9, de la Convention . Elle estime que la prÃ©sente affaire pose d'impo rtantes questions d'interprÃ©tation de cette disposition, question dont la complexitÃ© appelle, pour en dÃ©cider, un examen du fond de l'affaire . De plus, l'examen du dossier n'a permis de dÃ©celer aucun motif de dÃ©clarer la requÃªte irrecevable . Par ces motifs, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ©, la Commissio n
DÃ©CLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE .
-84 -

| ÖZTÜRK contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

Synthèse

Analyses

Parties

Origine de la décision

Source