Chancellor Merkel, your German ECHR Registrar Westerdiek took care that your criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias 'C. Paucher' will not tarnish the image of your country

The German Connection

Registrar Westerdiek - Single-Decision Judge Potocki pic.twitter.com/c3HQnEXh5U

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

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”.

Come to think of it.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

The clumsy person of disagreeable countenance who had planned months ahead to email on May 7, 2015 a heinous complaint about libel to the, stupid as only this Useful Idiot can be,

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

Great consideration has been taken by your German Registrar following the principle that “international courts are also advised to treat different states differently.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

After all, “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” (US law professor Dinah Shelton ‘Significantly Disadvantaged?’).

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

To guarantee this, Euro Clown judge Potocki writes:

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

Off into the trash bin.
(Single-decision Judge Potocki in his letter of 17/01/2019).

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

its institutions or its leading figures was akin to blasphemy ...".

Frédéric Bastiat would be appalled by this court.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

Disclaimer:
Any resemblance between the characters in this sorry episode and any persons, living or dead in a movie of similar name, is a miracle.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) September 9, 2019

Bundesministerium für Justiz, Jobcenter München würde als 'Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization' qualifizieren

@BMJV_Bund Minister of Justice, why does your country not have a RICO Act? The government agency Jobcenter Munich would qualify as target .

Jobcenter München GFin Anette Farrenkopf
- bandenmässige Betrügerin .

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.

The Euro clowns of the ECHR in Strasbourg know very well they have to treat high-reputation states more leniently than low-reputation states

A German civil servant using a false name?
No sweat, Euro clowns judge Potocki will cover that up for ze Germans.
Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision)

The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group (Pdf)

By Shai Dothan

The judicial tactics used by courts are complicated and context-specific. An interesting, perhaps counter-intuitive result, is that courts build their reputation by deliberately issuing demanding judgments and using reasoning techniques that expose their discretion. Compliance with such judgments is harder and more unexpected and that is why when states do comply, they send a potent signal that boosts the court's reputation.

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.

There is more. Here is the University of Birmingham. It is highly recommended to read their paper!

Managing judicial innovation in the European Court of Human Rights (Pdf)

by De Londras, Fiona; Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin

What this suggests, at the very least, is that the ECtHR is acutely aware of the political context in which its decisions are made and, indeed, of the extent to which it is on safe or shaky ground in the eyes of the relevant state party; considerations that become even more acute in situations in which sovereigntist urges might be said to run high. 

About the ECHR's "apparent willingness to treat different states somewhat differently in this context".

Managing Sovereigntist Inclinations

While issues that go to a state’s perceived identity bring about a reluctance to submit to international supervision on the part of states, matters that are seen to have existential implications for the state can draw out sovereigntist inclinations. In other words, in relation to these issues states can feel not only inclined but also justified in distancing themselves from international supervision and may instead concentrate on engaging with and within their domestic legal systems, making international courts’ supervision of these issues particularly difficult. This is clear from a consideration of the ECtHR’s treatment of national security cases and, in particular, its apparent willingness to treat different states somewhat differently in this context. 

Who would even dare to suggest that this august European Court "may well be susceptible to capture"?

If, as we suggest above, the Court sometimes takes cognisance of non-legal factors including the possible implications for its own position of taking an innovative approach to a question before it, it may well be susceptible to capture.

As Shai Dothan put it, "high reputation states" may even " influence the outcome unduly". There is absolutely no doubt that the German administration was involved in getting Case 51482/18 thrown out!

In other words, there is a possibility that in either deciding whether to hear the case at all or in reaching its final decision on a case the Court may take into account contracting parties’ reactions and allow this to influence the outcome unduly.

Or, as Lorenzo Zucca, for instance, criticised in footnote 57:

"what the ECtHR does not seem to understand is that its legitimacy as an international court of human rights also crucially depends on the quality of its reasoning, which should be regarded as exemplary in articulation and depth. Without those qualities, any decision is a defeat for justice even if it may be a Pyrrhic victory for institutional respectability" Zucca, ‘Lautsi: A Commentary on a Decision by the ECtHR Grand Chamber’ (2013) 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law 229.

The EU is known for highly dissenting and quarrelling member states which is no wonder given the history of Europe as a whole and this can and does lead to "fragile foundations of the consent of the Contracting Parties". Footnote 102 reads:

Macdonald, a former judge of the ECtHR, has pointed out that the whole system of European human rights protection ‘rests on the fragile foundations of the consent of the Contracting Parties’. Macdonald, ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, Matscher and Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993) 83 at 123.

 How about this to conclude?

"It has been well documented that non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications." 

This is from "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system" by Gerards and Glas from Utrecht in The Netherlands.

European Court of Human Rights ....... a VIP box of cardsharks? You betcha!

The video is in German. What he is basically saying is:

Our judiciary is incurably degenerate. It is an expiring soviet model where first-instance procedural truths from the higher courts to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are copied / pasted without plausibility testing.

One apparatchik controls the other. Nothing clever can come out of that. Of the 60 to 70,000 complaints that end up in Strasbourg every year, 90 to 98% are unfounded with a half-page text module. The complaints are not even read. Then they are destroyed.

Case Switzerland: On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Swiss Confederation's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, our Foreign Minister Didier BURKHALTER congratulated himself on the fact that Strasbourg only approved 1.6% of all claims from Switzerland (Bundesrat report of 19.11.2014). Wanted to say: We have the perfect constitutional state. The whole world believes that.
(Google translate)

. . . . . . . .

Here is an excerpt from the excellent paper 'Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights' authored by Dinah L. Shelton, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law Emeritus
Address:
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, District Of Columbia 20052

I have meanwhile read quite some papers with particular view on these so-called Single-Judges decisions and I have to say, without any intent to flatter her, Dinah Shelton's paper is the most outspoken. Here goes:

"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.

Currently, the Registry undertakes an initial evaluation of applications. A nonjudicial rapporteur from the Registry decides whether the application should be assigned to a single judge, a Committee or a Chamber, and assists the single judges, transmitting the lists of cases deemed inadmissible to the judges for approval. The President of the Court decides on the number of judges designated to sit as single judges and appoints them to serve for a period of one year. The Rules of Court provide that where the material submitted by the applicant is ‘on its own’ sufficient to disclose that the application is inadmissible or should be struck out of the list, it is to be considered by a single judge unless there is some special reason to act to the contrary. The single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out the application without further examination or appeal, notifying the applicant of the decision by letter. 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  (26) and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry. Once the application is rejected, the author of it is sent a form letter so indicating, without explanation or reasoned decision, simply stating that ‘taking ac- count of all the elements in its possession, and to the extent that it is able to evaluate the allegations formulated’, the Court sees no reason to proceed.

(26) Cameron, ‘The Court and the Member States: Procedural Aspects’ in Andreas Follesdal et al. (eds),Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (2013) 25 at 33. Lack of access to the applications is understandable because the single judge is unlikely to comprehend the many different languages of the applications.
(27) 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: see ibid. at 34."

There is more good stuff in her paper.

. . . . . . . . .

Here are some comments of victims under the Single-Judges regime.

What a disgrace these single-judge decision are and here.

. . . . . . . . .

ECHR Judge Potocki's decision reeks to high heaven and is an insult to any democratic being! The ECHR is covering a criminal. But what else would you expect from fucking Europe?!

"Publicity is the very soul of justice.” - Jeremy Bentham

ECHR Single-judge Decisions always lead to an Inadmissibility decision???

Color me ignorant but the way I understand it "this flow chart indicates the progress of a case by judicial formation" and the only way I can interpret it is indeed:

ECHR Single-judge Decisions always lead to an Inadmissibility decision.

ECHR Single-judge Decisions always lead to an Inadmissibility decision???

This means once a case is referred to a single judge the decision has already been made. There is no other logical way to see this differently.

Here is an excerpt from "The European Court of Human Rights: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Future" by McKaskle, Paul L. (2005).

In the Strasbourg Court, however, the Registrar's staff is answerable to the Registrar, and not to individual judges. The Registrar's staff prepares the initial analysis of all cases, is present in Chamber deliberations, and probably prepares most opinions of the Court. What effect this relationship has on the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court is impossible for an outsider to know.

In footnote 253 it reads:

Further, I have been told by lawyers familiar with the Court that they have seen applications that did appear to present serious issues but which were, nevertheless, rejected as "manifestly unfounded." While rejected applications are, in theory, available for public inspection, the procedure to see a file is tedious.

It is not only tedious, it is purged from public view:

"shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision."

Judge André Potocki

"I have been told by lawyers familiar with the ECHR that they have seen applications that did appear to present serious issues but which were, nevertheless, rejected as "manifestly unfounded"."

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

Great headline, right? Gathered it from Erik Voeten (more below):

"This scrutiny is sometimes targeted at individual judges. For example, the popular British tabloid The Sun individually singled out the “Euro clowns” it held responsible for the decision to stay the extradition of radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza to the United States.9 (Hamza claimed he faced the prospect of torture in a U.S. prison.)"

Here is a measured post about that SUN headline “Euro Clowns Let Hamza off the Hook,” August 7, 2008. Still, I like the moniker 'Euro Clowns' as the EU totally gets on my balls. Having outed myself again, here is the

Relevant excerpt from our complaint submitted to the ECHR:

Subject Art 8 ECHR

A confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judicial Decision of October 8, 2015. Nevertheless, it was confiscated by the police and it can also be assumed, the same was planned with the smartphone of his daughter, as a policewoman was present. Despite this unlawfulness, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed a keen interest in the results of the evaluation of phone data. For Hartz 4 recipients no rights seem to apply.

In a decision of February 4, 2005 - 2 BvR 308/04, the Federal Constitutional Court stated in paragraph 23 to 25 clear limits for a confiscation. On Nov. 22, 2016, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against police officer Carstens at the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office. Furthermore, he sent two Pdf to the police chief of Munich, which was allegedly handed to the prosecutor by the police according to their letter of April 26, 2017. The complainant has no correspondence with the file # 120 Js 119571/17, as was claimed by senior prosecutor Tilmann in the letter of June 1,2017 and again confirmed on Oct. 19, 2017. Everything was swept under the carpet.

To give that single-judge decision (Case 51482/18) the right twist we at the ECHR simply

"shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision."

There is an interesting paragraph in "The European Court of Human Rights: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Future" by McKaskle, Paul L. (2005) that explains the workings inside the ECHR and the national component. The pivot is the Registrar and his/her staff!

In the Strasbourg Court, however, the Registrar's staff is answerable to the Registrar, and not to individual judges. The Registrar's staff prepares the initial analysis of all cases, is present in Chamber deliberations, and probably prepares most opinions of the Court. What effect this relationship has on the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court is impossible for an outsider to know. For some judges the effect may well be minimal or non-existent. But it is possible that the staff views might have an effect on new judges or judges not entirely comfortable with the English or French language. 168 Extensive use of a central legal staff may also result in greater bureaucratic or institutional decision-making.

Second, in part, the legal staff (serving as the equivalent of an American law clerk) does carry out duties typical of the position, such as an analysis of each application filed with the Court as to whether it should be admissible because the allegations suggest that there has been a violation of the Convention. But the duties go further. Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, the Registrar or his designee is present during deliberations of a Committee, Chamber, or Grand Chamber. (171) The rules provide that "only judges shall take part in the deliberations,"' but it is not hard to imagine that many questions may well be put to the Registrar or other legal staff present, and thus the responses of staff constitute a de facto participation.

171. ECHR Rules, supranote 40, R. 22. Rule 22 also provides that "other officials of the Registry and interpreters whose assistance is deemed necessary" may also be present during deliberations. Id. In the United States Supreme Court, law clerks never participate in conferences, and such a practice is extremely rare in the California Supreme Court.

Even more embarrassing is this part in a footnote:

 I have been told by lawyers familiar with the Court that they have seen applications that did ap- pear to present serious issues but which were, nevertheless, rejected as "manifestly ill- founded." Since rejected applications are not easily accessible for public inspection, it is impossible to determine whether this is a systematic occurrence or are isolated events-or are simply mistakes of the observers as to whether the rejected applications are, in fact, meritorious. 

The ECHR employs double standards in the form of leniency towards "high-reputation states", or make that EU paymasters.

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.

Here is ERIK VOETEN, Georgetown University, with "The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights"

"About one-third of all applications are dismissed for procedural reasons by the registry. Another 60% of applications are declared inadmissible by unanimous decision of a committee of three judges, most frequently because the applicant had not exhausted domestic judicial remedies. 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."

The myth of the independent judge.

"Cultural factors could also be responsible for the apparent national bias of international judges. For example, Hensley (1968) attributes national bias on the ICJ to “the more subtle influence of culturally inculcated values” (p. 568), although he does not specify a precise mechanism through which culture has such an effect. One plausible mechanism is that judges who are accustomed to political interference domestically are more likely to defer to the position of their government when serving on an international court."

And let's not forget the fucking stupid criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher". Covered by Munich police and the rotten Munich Court. Roland Freisler would admire them blokes.

Hi, my name is Jürgen Sonneck.
I do not always use a false name but when I do, I make sure
I come come across as totally fucking bonkers.

ECHR Single-judge Decisions always lead to an Inadmissibility decision???

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)

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

Criminal, Useful Idiot cum civil servant Jürgen Sonneck

Here is the Useful Idiot cum civil servant Jürgen Sonneck pictured.

Part of the blame has to be levelled at the rotten Munich Court. With their unrelenting refusal to grant any access to court files over years, Jürgen Sonneck felt absolutely cock sure he would stay under the radar undetected. That's why he did not deem it necessary to move his fucking ass. Like driving to a café at the south shore of Lake Starnberg or take a train to Lengries or Tegernsee. No, Jürgen chose his home. In the evening. After work. Everything was planned six months before. What could possibly go wrong?

Once I managed to blow his cover (via IP address, damning conspicuous circumstantial evidence) I went on full attack mode against J.S. with a barrage of PDFs to the President of Munich police and various Federal Government Ministries in Berlin in June/July 2017 (here, here, here, here, here and here - all in German). Oh, in typical German fashion no one responded.

Mid July 2017 the Useful Idiot Jürgen Sonneck was hastily shifted under cover of the night from his former post as deputy CEO at the Jobcenter Munich to the Department for Education and Sport Munich.

. . . . . . . . .

Excerpt from complaint: "At around 8:45 am on October 28, 2015, two plainclothes policemen and a policewoman appeared and demanded admission on presentation of a Judgmental Decree (Annex 3) dated Oct. 8, 2015, which was not signed by the judge. A male police officer immediately rushed to the door to the complainant's daughter's room and threw it open without knocking. The daughter of the complainant, however, was already in school. During the trial, the complainant was physically searched and it was obvious that the female police officer was supposed to body-search his daughter. The apartment was photographed and also the house from the outside. All IT equipment including router was confiscated, because a blogger had to be rendered incapable of any access to the Internet. This was the second computer confiscation after 2013 (then for 25 months without financial compensation!). This as well after a criminal complaint by the Munich labor office. Although the confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judgmental Decree, this too was confiscated (Annex 5). The same was undoubtedly planned with his daughter's smartphone."

. . . . . . . . .

None of this interests the ECHR which had already turned heads with its ridiculous blasphemy decision just months earlier. As one commenter on REASON wrote:

"But seriously, the ECtHR is not a national supreme/constitutional court, and so on some issues they play the "margin of appreciation" card rather than getting stuck in thorny political issues."

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)

ECHR declares, Marissa Mayer meme contravenes German Criminal Code Section 86a "Use of Symbols of Nazi Organizations" (Case 51482/18)

The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, 
all the collective forces of the nation—the law, 
I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, 
but made to pursue one entirely contrary!

Frédéric Bastiat 

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The European Court of Human Rights sees this Marissa Mayer meme NOT covered by Article 10 ECHR.

ECHR does not like the Marissa Mayer meme

And since we at the ECHR do not want to deal with such crap from low-life bloggers we will shred your shit in a year's time. Capisce! Because that's how Single-Judge-Decisions work.

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

Meanwhile German prosecutors have their very own views.

So coincidentally and related the Hamburg prosecutor declared this Hitler image in BENTO (an online youth magazine of DER SPIEGEL) as NOT contravening Criminal Code Section 86a (File #: 7101 Js 742/17).

This Hitler image is fine because it is from DER SPIEGEL
which is the journalistic gold standard.

Likewise in rotten Munich Court. Munich prosecutor Tilmann finds this Merkel-Nazi image in the Munich fake news gazette 'MERKUR' A-OK.

Merkel-Nazi image works well with Munich Court. Double standards anyone?

Bonus trivia: The European Court of Justice has for the umpteenth time to decide about that piece of cloth worn on a head, aka head scarf. It's been called on from, where else, Germany. Good-golly.

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

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

"Impossible, Madame. The law has its procedures."

GÉRARD DE VILLEFORT

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.

Thucydides

ECHR declares, Marissa Mayer meme contravenes German Criminal Code Section 86a "Use of Symbols of Nazi Organizations" (Case 51482/18)

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"