PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29090/06) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a stateless person, Mr Günther Paul Litwin (“the applicant”), on 14 May 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr T. Schmidt, a lawyer practising in Giessen. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been denied access to the appeal courts, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 29 March 2010 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Fulda.

On 23 February 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed robberies. He was detained pending trial. The trial, at which he was represented by counsel, began on 19 October 2000. At the end of the fifth day of the trial, and after evidence had been heard, the court set the next trial hearing for 17 November 2000 at 9 a.m. According to the court transcript, the trial only started at 10 a.m. on that date.

On 17 November 2000 between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. negotiations took place inside the court building, the content of which are in dispute between the parties.

According to the applicant’s submissions, the court, having previously indicated that the potential penalty that the applicant faced could amount to fourteen years’ imprisonment, promised a maximum penalty of nine‑and‑a‑half years’ imprisonment in exchange for the applicant’s waiver of his right to appeal, as well as a waiver of the applicant’s and his wife’s claims over confiscated assets and an agreement that he would not call for further evidence.

According to the Government, the public prosecutor did not take part in the agreement reached. The court, following a proposal made by the applicant’s counsel, promised a penalty of less than ten years’ imprisonment in exchange for the applicant’s waiver of claims over confiscated assets.

According to the court transcript of the hearing on 17 November 2000, which makes no mention of the agreement, further documents were then read out, the presiding judge gave legal advice as to the qualification of the alleged offences and both the applicant and his wife, who was present in the courtroom, declared that they waived any rights to the assets confiscated by the prosecution service.

At the end of the hearing, the Fulda Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated extortion, aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery (two counts of each offence) and dangerous bodily injury (one count) and sentenced him to nine-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. The court, stating that the applicant had not entered a plea, based its findings on DNA expert evidence pointing to a high probability that the applicant had been the person that had caused marks found at the crime scenes and on further circumstantial evidence derived, in particular, from witness testimony. The court considered the fact that the applicant had eventually waived his right to the confiscated assets and had thus delivered a major proportion of his criminal profits as a mitigating factor.

After delivery of the judgment, the court verbally informed the applicant of his right to lodge an appeal on points of law. In the applicant’s presence, counsel for both the defence and the prosecution waived their rights to appeal.

The applicant subsequently appointed new counsel. On 12 April 2001 the applicant’s new counsel applied for restitution of the status quo ante and lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the waiver of the right to appeal had been invalid because it had not complied with the requirements of the Federal Court of Justice’s case-law. As the applicant had not been aware of the invalidity of his waiver, he could not be held responsible for having failed to comply with the statutory time-limit of one week for lodging an appeal on points of law. In a written statement attached to the application, the applicant submitted that his previous counsel had informed him that he would have to expect the imposition of a prison sentence of at least fourteen years if he did not accept the court’s proposal and that he was only informed about the invalidity of the waiver during a first conversation with his new counsel which took place on 10 April 2001.

In pleadings dated 10 May 2001 counsel specified the grounds of appeal on points of law. He complained that the negotiated agreement had not been recorded in the court transcript, as required by the case-law of the Fourth Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice (see paragraph 19 below). In his view, this constituted a breach of the principle of a public hearing. He also argued that the actual waiver of the right to appeal had been declared before delivery of the judgment – namely when negotiating the agreement – and had been invalid for this reason as well.

On 11 June 2001 the Second Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice (file no. 2 StR 223/01) dismissed the applicant’s request for restitution of the status quo ante and rejected his appeal on points of law as inadmissible. Relying on its own settled case-law, the court observed that a waiver of the right to appeal could not be revoked, rescinded or withdrawn. The Court of Justice did not find it necessary to establish whether the waiver had been part of a negotiated agreement, as this fact did not call into question the validity of the waiver as such. The waiver had to be measured by different standards: notably, whether the accused had retained the freedom to either accept a judgment against him or lodge an appeal had to be verified. This freedom had to be preserved, even if the judgment had been based on an objectionable agreement and the waiver had constituted honouring such an agreement. Notwithstanding any procedural defect in the alleged agreement, the accused may have pursued his interests in an autonomous and appropriate way. The only decisive factor was whether the accused had been unduly influenced when waiving his right to appeal. In the present case, there was no indication that there had been such undue influence. The applicant’s submissions neither disclosed an error or misunderstanding on the applicant’s part, nor any deceit or false information given by the court, nor any impairment of the interests of the defence.

The court further considered that, as a result of the valid waiver of the right to appeal, the Fulda Regional Court’s judgment had become legally binding on 17 November 2000 and that the appeal on points of law thus had to be rejected as inadmissible. It followed that the applicant could not be granted restitution of the status quo ante. If a person had knowingly waived a right to appeal, he had not been “prevented from observing a time-limit” within the meaning of Article 44 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 5 July 2001.

On 3 August 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming that he had been unduly influenced when waiving his right to appeal in exchange for a maximum penalty of nine-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the Federal Court of Justice had failed to consider the fact that his wife, who had not been involved in the trial, had also been asked to waive any rights she had to the confiscated assets. This procedural method had been arbitrary, had not been in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the confiscation of assets in criminal proceedings and had also constituted a violation of the right to an effective remedy. On 20 November 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court (file no. 2 BvR 1339/01), relying on the relevant provisions of its rules of procedure, refused to admit the constitutional complaint for examination without giving further reasons. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 4 December 2003.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e1
001-107286_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
29090/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-107286_a8_e2
001-107286_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Republic of Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e3
001-107286_a8_em3
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Günther Paul Litwin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e4
001-107286_a8_em4
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e5
001-107286_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Schmidt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-107286_a8_e6
001-107286_a8_em6
LOC
NO_MASK
Giessen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e7
001-107286_a8_em7
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e8
001-107286_a8_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e9
001-107286_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e10
001-107286_a8_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
29 March 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e11
001-107286_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
1958
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e12
001-107286_a8_em12
LOC
QUASI
Fulda
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e13
001-107286_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e14
001-107286_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
19 October 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e15
001-107286_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e16
001-107286_a8_em16
DATETIME
NO_MASK
9 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e17
001-107286_a8_em17
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e15
001-107286_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e16
001-107286_a8_em19
DATETIME
NO_MASK
9 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e17
001-107286_a8_em20
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e18
001-107286_a8_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
fourteen years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e19
001-107286_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
nine‑and‑a‑half years’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e20
001-107286_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e15
001-107286_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e21
001-107286_a8_em25
ORG
QUASI
Fulda Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e22
001-107286_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
12 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e23
001-107286_a8_em27
ORG
QUASI
Federal Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e24
001-107286_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
one week
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e18
001-107286_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
fourteen years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e25
001-107286_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e26
001-107286_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e27
001-107286_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
11 June 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e28
001-107286_a8_em33
CODE
DIRECT
2 StR 223/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e29
001-107286_a8_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e21
001-107286_a8_em35
ORG
QUASI
Fulda Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e15
001-107286_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e30
001-107286_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e31
001-107286_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
3 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e23
001-107286_a8_em39
ORG
QUASI
Federal Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e32
001-107286_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e33
001-107286_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-107286_a8_e34
001-107286_a8_em42
CODE
DIRECT
no. 2 BvR 1339/01
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-107286_a8_e35
001-107286_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
4 December 2003
Günther Paul Litwin
DEU
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Günther Paul Litwin