Open letter to President of ECHR Mr. Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos - Mr. President, your Court shuns publicity; your Court failed on all counts miserably “to cause justice to reign over all”

President Sicilianos
© ECHR

F A X

European Court of Human Rights
President: Mr. Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos


cc Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Chancellory Berlin



Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision) - German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who operated under the false name “C. Paucher” protected by ECHR

June 8, 2019

Dear President Sicilianos,

In his classic essay 'The Law' Frédéric Bastiat' wrote:

"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all."

I am afraid, Mr President, I fail to see that administered by your very Court. As much as I understand the need of streamlining the delivery of justice given the tens of thousands of complaints submitted, Single-Judge decisions fail to achieve that when one subscribes to Bastiat’s tenet.

Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs sadly flies into its face. It is not very reassuring when one reads in Dinah Shelton’s (Professor of International Law Emeritus) "Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights”:

“… the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states …”

It is disconcerting when Gerards and Glas from the University Utrecht write in "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system":

“… non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. … these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case. … Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file”.

With the Single-Judge decision 51482/18 your Court protected and covered the primitive German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who had the ass-hatted idea to email a criminal complaint to police using the false name “C. Paucher”, accusing me falsely of hate speech! That amounts to malicious intent. To cover its tracks, your Court which claims to honor and guarantee human rights in the hodgepodge that is Europe, resorts to the destruction of the case files:

“The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision”.

The ECHR should have the decency to call Single-Judge decisions what they are: a Registry rapporteur decision signed by a single judge who has not even looked at the case file in toto, “seconded by personnel paid for by individual states” who try their best to keep their country’s image clean. In particular, when the EU paymaster’s and high-reputation country Germany’s image is at stake!

In Rules of Court, 1 August 2018, Registry of the Court, Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs is explained:

1. When sitting in a single-judge formation, the Court shall be assisted by non-judicial rapporteurs who shall function under the authority of the President of the Court. They shall form part of the Court’s Registry.

Incidentally, that is the German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek! The Germans have a saying for that: "Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen”.

In ‘The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights’  Erik Voeten, Georgetown University, informs:

"Admissibility decisions are based on the recommendation of a rapporteur, which is usually the national judge of the respondent government, granting that judge considerable leverage over national cases.”

Shai Dothan addresses in ‘The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group’ the country-specific partialities and bias of the ECHR:

Importantly for the purposes of this paper, international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states. They will reserve their most demanding judgments—especially those that are based on doctrinal novelties—to states that have a low-reputation.

This is seconded by Dinah Shelton who again in ‘Significantly Disadvantaged?’ observes:

“As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.”

And further in a rather damning description of court proceedings:

“As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identifying the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.”

In footnote 27 it reads:

“The problem of a ‘hidden judiciary’ of secretariat lawyers making the actual decisions is not unique to the European system. Cameron notes that this can create problems of integrity when the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states: …“

There is no doubt that either the Court in Strasbourg, an inside German government representative, and/or the German government communicated to cover up this incredible and screwed up incident committed by the German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who has been and is  still being protected and covered by Munich police and the Munich Court, reminiscent of Nazi times.

Is it a mere coincidence that the judicial formation of the Court in Section V is formed among others by Judge Potocki, the Single-Judge in this respective case, and complemented with the Registrar being the German Claudia Westerdiek? And to round off the perfect assemblage, the President of Section V is none other than the German Mrs. Angelika Nußberger.

The ECHR did not even make an effort to conceal its pro high-reputation states bias and blatantly handed my case to the GERMAN Section V to get the whole deeply embarrassing case sterilized and decontaminated. Just as Dinah Shelton laid bare in  "Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights”:

“… the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states …

… the judges do not see the applications and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.”

The Registry being the German Claudia Westerdiek!

When the Court’s decision reads “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” and subsequently, “the Court declares the application inadmissible”, it triggers the question what makes this internet meme NOT covered by free speech? Where does the ECHR see a “means of propaganda” in this Marissa Mayer meme?

“(2) Means of propaganda within the meaning of subsection (1) shall only be those writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) the content of which is directed against the free, democratic constitutional order or the idea of international understanding.” - German Criminal Code 86

What makes this image of Hitler in full splendour in DER SPIEGEL’s youth portal ‘Bento’ (the image is about the German political party AfD) legal according to the prosecution in the City of Hamburg? German media is full of such images because Hitler sells.

• The criminal civil servant J. Sonneck (the same person who filed the complaint underlying ECHR Case 35285/16) uses the false name “C. Paucher” to accuse me falsely of hate speech and armed police dash into the room of my daughter without knocking. Confiscates our computers for the second time! The ECHR buries it by Single-Judge decision.
• The laptop of my then school-attending Tibetan daughter, is deliberately damaged by the Kangaroo Court Munich. It does not concern the ECHR.
• Smartphone confiscated without court order by police just like in Nazi times does not bother the ECHR?
• The same intended with my daughter’s smartphone is fine and my complaint according to Article 35 is “manifestly ill-founded”?
• Criminal J. Sonneck NOT called by the Munich court for interrogation despite my demand sent to the court and the ECHR sees no plot and coverup?
• House inside and outside photographed for publishing an internet meme and the ECHR trundles along?
• Lying Munich judge Bassler poses in all three cases (all based on criminal complaints by German labor agencies (!)) as judge and the Munich court has no judicial business distribution plan. The ECHR considers all this inadmissible under Article 35?

Your Court does not even follow its own set criteria. THE NEW ADMISSIBILITY CRITERION UNDER ARTICLE 35 § 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION states under section II:

5. In 2010, the High Contracting Parties invited the Court to give full effect to the new admissibility criterion and to consider other possibilities of applying the principle de minimis non curat praetor.6 Further in 2011 the Court has been invited to “give full effect to the new admissibility criterion in accordance with the de minimis principle”.

The ECHR is lamenting an increase of repetitive cases. My case was about an internet meme showing the former Yahoo CEO in a photoshopped Nazi uniform and a text about ‘Work from Home’. I am not not aware of any case where the ECHR was confronted with an internet meme. So it was clearly not de minimis nor was it repetitive. It was, however, deeply damaging for Germany, embarrassing in its stupidity and a further proof of the absence of free speech in Germany. Such a complaint has to be thrown out and ultimately any evidence destroyed to keep the image of Germany untainted.

As Shai Dothan noted:

“… international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states."

Your Court’s Section V with German Registrar Westerdiek delivered and did a splendid job of covering up a sordid scheme that only a screwed up and heinous German civil servant could have concocted.

With all due respect, Mr President, I can't help but to reminisce 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; …”

These “political phenomena” (de Jouvenel) are the very construct of the ‘Rotten Heart of Europe’ (Bernard Connolly), an entity based on the fact that Europe comprises of different and ill-fitting nation states. When one reads "The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision”, Jeremy Bentham springs to mind:

“Publicity is the very soul of justice.”

Mr. President, your Court shuns that publicity; your Court failed on all counts miserably “to cause justice to reign over all”.

Thank you,

. . . . . . . . . . . .

ECHR Sections

The German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek.
You could say she is in that position since decades.

To be followed by a letter to the German Registrar Westerdiek.

The complaint and case here.