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.