Computer of migrant daughter deliberately damaged by the rotten Munich Court. That is of no concern to the ECHR. Just stop blogging critical stuff about German Jobcenters and you are fine (Case 51482/18)

Oh the ECHR and its 'Margin of Appreciation'

Excerpt from complaint:

"The computer of his daughter was returned in a deliberately (!) damaged condition (clear scratches in the lower left quarter of the screen and a broken trackpad) by the Munich Court. Since it was unusable, the complainant sent it to the Federal Ministry f. Work and Social Affairs BMAS in January 2017. The MacBook was confiscated even though the daughter needed it for school. The then attorney of the complainant in a trial before the Munich court on May 6, 2015 which resulted in the ECHR Case 35285/16 warned in the presence of the daughter of the complainant literally that if the blog should be continued, "they will destroy you" (in German "machen die Sie fertig"). He was referring to the Munich Court."

A recent post on an upcoming case on the blog "Verfassungsblog.de" concluded:

"The upcoming decision will show if the ECtHR still deserves its titles as ‘guarantor’ of the Convention and ‘island of hope in stormy times’ or whether this island is drowning under the pressure of some of its Member States."

Indeed and in this particular case, as one of the main funding states Germany has a right that guarantors of its mind-boggling export surplus such as the Jobcenters are not to be criticized. And if so, within our flexible legal bounds it will be stopped. Greetings from Strasbourg!

"Due to its vague nature, opposing the universal nature of human rights, the margin of appreciation doctrine has been subject to extensive criticism, including the denial of its legitimacy while other authors underline that it is a necessary and legitimate principle of interpretation of the Convention."

See: The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’ Post-2011 Jurisprudence

The Margin of Appreciation; its limits and inconsistencies.

"Deference

The ECtHR gives deference to National courts because there is a possibility that national highest courts have indicated that they will not always comply with the decision of the ECtHR. [38] Deference is used to avoid conflict between national courts and states and is a symbol of unity. [39] By giving deference the ECtHR gives respect to national constitutional traditions and preventing situations of real conflict. Where the court solely relies on correspondence given to it by states’, accurate investigations and findings are prevented threatening its unity and compliance [40] and this is what the court is trying to protect."

He concludes:

"This shows individual state interests are put before those of the court."

In addition, confiscation of smartphone without court order no concern for "Euro clowns” at ECHR (Case 51482/18)