Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany
![handle is hein.journals/hurcd5 and id is 220 raw text is: HUMAN RIGHTS CASE DIGEST
SUMMARIES OF JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v GERMANY
In a judgment delivered in Strasbourg on 18 July 1994 in the Karlheinz Schmidt case the European
Court of Human Rights held by 6 votes to 3 that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the
Convention of Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 4(3)[d].
BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
Principal facts
On 30 April 1982 the municipal authorities of Tettnang in the Land of Baden-Wiirttemberg required
the applicant to pay a fire service levy of 75 German marks for 1982. Their decision was founded on
section 43 of the Land's Fire Brigades Act as amended on 27 November 1978 and on the municipal
decree of 5 December 1979. On 20 July 1982 the Bodensee district administrative authority rejected
the applicant's appeal against the town's decision.
His appeal to the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen, alleging sex discrimination, was dismissed on
18 August 1983. A further appeal to the Administrative Appeals Court of the Land was likewise
dismissed on 25 March 1986, and at the same time he was refused leave to appeal on points of law.
He unsuccessfully contested this refusal in the Federal Administrative Court. On 31 January 1987 the
Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept a constitutional appeal for adjudication, holding that
such an appeal would not have sufficient prospects of success.
Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights
The application was lodged with the Commission on 11 August 1987. It was declared admissible on 8
January 1992.
Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission drew up a report on
14 January 1993 in which it established the facts of the case and expressed the opinion by 14 votes to
3 that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article I of Protocol No. I
and with Article 4(3)[d] of the Convention.
SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT
Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4(3)[d] of the Convention
A. Applicability
Like the participants in the proceedings the Court considered that compulsory fire service such
as existed in Baden-Wfirttemberg was one of the normal civic obligations envisaged in
Article 4(3)[d]. It concluded that, on account of its close links with the obligation to serve, the
obligation to pay also fell within the scope of Article 4(3)[d].
It followed that Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 4(3)[d] was applicable.
B. Compliance
The Court noted that some German LUnder did not impose different obligations for the two
sexes in this field and that even in Baden-Wairttemberg women were accepted for voluntary
service in the fire brigade.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hurcd5&div=138&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most