ECtHR single-judge André Potocki decision gently conveys: 'If you are a recipient of Hartz 4, just do not send a complaint to us. You are a low-caste.' (Case 51482/18)

André Potocki - ECtHR Judge

The complaint and background is here.

Beschwerde Nr. 51482/18 

17/01/2019

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat in Einzelrichterbesetzung entschieden, die obige Beschwerde für unzulässig zu erklären.

Die Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs ist in der Anlage beigefügt.

Diese Entscheidung ist endgültig und unterliegt keiner Berufung an einen Dreierausschuss, eine Kammer oder an die Große Kammer. Daher werden Sie in dieser Beschwerdesache keine weiteren Schreiben des Gerichtshofs erhalten. Der Gerichtshof wird die Beschwerdeakte nicht länger als ein Jahr ab dem Datum dieser Entscheidung in seinem Archiv aufbewahren.

Diese Entscheidung ergeht in einer der beiden Amtssprachen des Gerichtshofs (Englisch oder Französisch) und wird nicht in andere Sprachen übersetzt.

Die Kanzlei des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte

In English:

Complaint 51482/18

01/17/2019

The European Court of Human Rights has decided in a single-judge setting to declare the above complaint inadmissible.

The decision of the Court is annexed hereto.

This decision is final and is not subject to appeal to a tripartite committee, a chamber or to the Grand Chamber. Therefore, you will not receive any further letters from the Court in this case. The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision.

This Decision shall be rendered in one of the two official languages of the Court (English or French) and shall not be translated into other languages.

The Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

. . . . . . . . . .

DECISION

(Application no. 51482/18) 

introduced on 29 October 2018 

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 10 January 2019 in a single-judge formation pursuant to Articles 24 § 2 and 27 of the Convention, has examined the application as submitted.

The Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met.

The Court declares the application inadmissible.

André Potocki

Judge

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

So the ECHR has established in a through and through democratic setting of just one single judge (Single-Judge Decisions) and assisted by a non-judicial rapporteur (!!!) that this Internet meme indeed contravenes Germany's Criminal Code 86a and it is therefore illegal to be displayed on the internet or in print in Germany.

That no "rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols" have been violated by the civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who emailed a criminal complaint to police using the false name 'C. Paucher' and insinuated the post below would constitute hate speech.

The ECHR further has no reservations about the illegal confiscation of my smartphone without court order and the attempt, had my daughter been at home, to confiscate her's as well. The ECHR is also indifferent to the deliberate damaging of my daughter's computer by the Munich Court. Neither is the court bothered about the confiscation of the router.

In essence the ECHR conveys the following message with its decision:

If you are a recipient of Hartz 4 just do not send a complaint to us. You are a low-caste.

Do not blog, or face the consequences!

Contravenes Germany's Criminal Code 86a

Here is Helena De Vylder. Helena is a Ph.D. Researcher at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University on "Why single judge decisions undermine the Court’s legitimacy" on the website of STRASBOURG OBSERVERS.

First this:

Apart from the new admissibility requirement – significant disadvantage –, the 14th Protocol contains a number of procedural changes. The competences of chambers and committees have been changed and single judge-formations (assisted by a non-judicial rapporteur) were created and given the competence to take final decisions regarding the admissibility of cases where such a decision can be taken without further examination.

And the effects are impressive:

The yearly statistics available on the ECHR-website (Annual Report 2013) suggest that the 14th Protocol did a wonderful job, as regards the speeding up of procedures. The backlog of the ECtHR has decreased enormously in the latest years and the renewed efficiency of the Court thanks to the filtering-mechanisms has been applauded. The single judge-formations contribute massively in this regard. However, the commented case sheds light on the other side of the decisions issued by single judges. These decisions are not published, but we had the opportunity to access one of them when an applicant who had obtained an unsatisfactory decision contacted the Strasbourg Observers.

Here is btw the Annual Report for 2018.

The aberrant lack of reasons does not just withhold the applicant from knowing the exact reason for the inadmissibility, it equally prevents him from having any insight in the fairness of the decision-making process. The legitimacy of the Court’s decision is at stake. The absence of appeal, and the quick destruction of the files, even create the appearance that the judge wants to cover up an unwillingness to investigate the issue.

Moreover, even though appeal is not possible after a negative admissibility decision, article 37(2) ECHR provides for the Court to restore a case to its list if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course. Where an inadmissibility-decision is based on an administrative error, for example, the Court will restore the case to its list. (ECtHR, Golmann and Szénàsky v. Hungary; ECtHR, Noé et. al. v. Hungary) The applicant has been deprived of this opportunity due to the absence of any reasoning.

Neither Articles 26 and 27 of the ECHR, nor Rule 52A of the Rules of Court or the explanatory report to Protocol 14, require the Court to give reasons for inadmissibility decision issued by single judges. However, Article 45 imposes a general obligation on the Court to give reason for its judgments and decisions. The single judges’ practice not to give any reasons[1], clearly violates this provision. Moreover, one could argue that this requirement lies at the heart of the Convention system as a whole.

The Court imposes strict standards upon its member states as regards the motivation of judgments in both civil and criminal cases. The right to a fair and public hearing in Article 6(1) ECHR includes the duty for the domestic courts ‘to indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they base their decision’. (ECtHR, Karyagin, Matveyev and Korolev v. Russia; ECtHR, Hirvisaari v. Finland) It must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed. (ECtHR, Boldea v. Romania) One could ask himself how the Court can require the member states to provide reasons, while at the same time not living up to the same standards.

Her full post here.

Criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias 'C. Paucher'.
(covered by Munich police and Court)

Thucydides et al. respond to deplorable Single-Judge Decision of the ECtHR (Case 51482/18) re. criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher"