"Impossible, Madame. The law has its procedures."
I start with a rhetorical question: Who is the paymaster of the EU?
Upon which I turn to Bertrand de Jouvenel:
Observation and introspection have convinced me that,
even in our times of numerous and detailed laws,
men are in fact ruled much less by laws than by compulsive
internal images of what they should do – behavioral models;
that their conduct is not a matter of personal fancy
within the limits set by legal obligations,
but gravitates around their behavioural image,
which itself alters over time; that, even though
public commands become both more frequent and more specific,
behaviour and action are governed in the main by suggestions
without legal force; that these phenomena are more important
than those usually denominated “political” and are in fact
basic to so-called “political phenomena.”
Men can in fact be moved to certain actions and behaviours
by means lacking all legal authority and power of constraint
no less well than by the public authorities….
1. Are these rejected complaints based on Single-Judge Decisions single, unique instances? It does not seem so. According to this comment here on a German lawyer's website it happened to that commenters' wife FIVE times! So one can imagine the scope. ECHR stats for 2018 are here and here (60 pages).
2. A very interesting and sobering read is here (mostly in German) from a Munich lawyer's website. Excerpts:
Aus der oben genannten Statistik (aus 2017) des Gerichtshofes folgt zunächst, dass durch die Vielzahl der Beschwerden beim Einzelrichter (jährlich 2.350) diesem praktisch unmöglich ist, sich selbst auf die Beschwerde zu entscheiden. Es ist daher offensichtlich, dass die Einzelrichter nicht in der Lage sind, eine solche Zahl von Fällen einer in tatsächlicher und rechtlicher Hinsicht umfassenden eigenen Prüfung zu unterziehen. Damit liegt an den Mitarbeiter der für jeweiligen Mitgliedstaat zuständigen Rechtsabteilung nicht nur die Entscheidung über die Vorlage der Beschwerde an den zuständigen Einzelrichter, sondern auch die Entscheidung in der Sache selbst, mit der Folge, dass eine Entscheidung „durch den Einzelrichter“ nach Art. 26 A der VO eine Fiktion ist, d.h. sie ist überhaupt nicht erfolgt. Die Entscheidung wird durch einen – den beklagten Staat präsentierenden und von dem finanziell abhängigen - Mitarbeiter der Rechtsabteilung, der namentlich nicht bekannt ist getroffen und als „richterliche Entscheidung“ daher unzutreffend bezeichnet.
Das mit dem Protokoll Nr. 14 zur EMRK verfolgte Ziel, im Rahmen von Einzelrichterverfahren offenkundig aussichtslose Beschwerden möglichst früh und effizient zu einer Entscheidung zuführen, die das Verfahren endgültig abschließt, hat somit mittlerweile zu einer solchen Art der Verfahrensvereinfachung geführt, dass einem Beschwerdeführer keine richterliche Prüfung seiner Sache garantiert sein kann und die Qualität der Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs nicht mehr gewahrt bleibt. Denn weder eine richterliche Unterschrift noch eine konkrete Begründung ist der „Entscheidung“ zu entnehmen.in English
From the above-mentioned statistics (based on 2017) of the Court follows first that the large number of complaints to the single judge (annually 2,350) this is practically impossible to decide on the complaint itself. It is therefore obvious that the individual judges are unable to subject such a number of cases to a substantive and legal own examination. Thus, the employee of the legal department responsible for each Member State is not only involved in the decision on the submission of the complaint to the competent individual judge, but also in the decision of the case itself, with the result that a decision "by the single judge" under Art. 26 A the VO is a fiction, ie it did not happen at all. The decision is made by a representative of the legal department, representing the defendant state and financially dependent, who is not known by name and is therefore considered as a "judicial decision" inaccurate.
The objective pursued by Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR of bringing apparently hopeless complaints as soon as possible and efficiently to a decision in individual judicial proceedings that finally closes the procedure has meanwhile led to such a simplification of procedure that a complainant is not subject to judicial review The quality of the decisions of the Court can no longer be guaranteed. For neither a judicial signature nor a concrete justification can be inferred from the "decision".Now again my question, who is the paymaster of the EU?! Of course you do not want to see poop on your country's doormat. That is what these country representatives deal with, cleansing. A lot of poop gets thrown in the bin. Single-Judge Decisions are deleted after one year. That's how you keep the house clean and the reputation of the respective country.
Such dishonorable is the case at the ECHR that one complainant even turned to the UN Human Rights Committee. In the case of Marìa Cruz Achabal Puertas v. Spain (1945/2010), CCPR/C/107/D/1945/2010 (2013) the UN Human Rights Committee wrote on June 18,2013:
“The Committee recalls its case law relating to article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol to the effect that, when the European Court bases a declaration of inadmissibility not solely on procedural grounds but also on reasons that include a certain consideration of the merits of the case, then the same matter should be deemed to have been “examined” within the meaning of the respective reservations to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol; and it must be considered that the European Court has gone well beyond the examination of the purely formal criteria of admissibility when it declares a case inadmissible because “it does not reveal any violation of the rights and freedoms established in the Convention or its Protocols”.
However, in the particular circumstances of this case, the limited reasoning contained in the succinct terms of the Court’s letter does not allow the Committee to assume that the examination included sufficient consideration of the merits in accordance with the information provided to the Committee by both the author and the State party. Consequently, the Committee considers that there is no obstacle to its examining the present communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.”The lawyer continues:
The current form of individual judicature in the Court of Justice also contradicts the Court's own case-law on Article 6 (1) (1) of the ECHR (right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard) in relation to the decisions of other courts.
The Court of Justice, in its settled case-law, emphasizes that ensuring a fair trial requires the establishment and communication of any decision, Hadjianastassio ./. GR, A 252 (1992), para. 33 = EuGRZ 1993, 70. It says:
„33. The Contracting States enjoy considerable freedom in the choice of the appropriate means to ensure that their judicial systems comply with the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6). The national courts must, however, indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they based their decision. It is this, inter alia, which makes it possible for the accused to exercise usefully the rights of appeal available to him.“3. Here is a case of child abuse not accepted by the ECHR and here is more.
4. Here is a German ex-policeman unhappy about the ECHR and Judge Potocki.
The ECHR files are destroyed, single judge Andre Potocki covers the judicial criminals around the right-wing radicals Clemens Lückemann: deprivation of liberty in office is not a violation of the Convention on Human Rights ...!
That guy was really taken for a ride in rotten and corrupt Bavaria.
So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth,
accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.