Interesting parallels in Germany – part eleven

19 04 2010

Continuing with our Parallels in Germany series, in this instalment, I’d like to present the text of a letter from the European Court of Human Rights which was sent to my ‘informant’ – a fellow who has been sorely and unfairly caught up in the German and European court process ( for background, check out the rest of the posts in this series ):

Dear Sir,

I write to inform you that on 6 December 2005 the European Couft of Human Rights, sitting as a Committee of three judges (M. Pellonpdd, President, S. Pavlovschi and L. Mijovi6) pursuant to Article 27 of the Convention, decided under Article 28 of the Convention to declare the above application inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they did not disclose arry appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

This decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the Court, including its Grand Chamber, or any other body. You will therefore appreciate that the Registry will be unable to provide any further details about the Committee’s deliberations or to conduct further correspondence relating to its decision in this case. You will receive no further documents from the Court concerning this case and, in accordance with the Court’s instructions, the file will be destroyed one year after the date of the decision.

The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 53 & 2 of the Rules of Court.

Here is my ‘informant’s response, in email correspondence with me:

I attach the letter I got from the European Court of Human Rights saying they had dropped my case because they could not see how my Human Rights had been infringed.

In reality they were protecting the next lower court the European Court for its decision that the German Justice Ministry got:
 
 The compatibility of the Legal Advice Act with European legislation has been confirmed by the European Court by verdict dated 12 December 1996.
 
I will send you the correspondence I sent them and other replies I got from them later. This all proves that the ECofHR does not deal in human rights for law abiding citizens, when the accused regime(s) are the defendants, in cases that involve lots of money, if they lose. They were supposed to deal with the handling of the court (RIGGING) and the most ridiculous verdict which is, incidentally impossible, so it cannot be a judgment, and it contradicts the written law on the subject and, the action of the lawyers in their blatant betrayal of me.

All details can be sent it is all in writing.

More to come…

Advertisements

Actions

Information

3 responses

21 04 2010
Geert Wilders brilliant speech | Its incredible!

[…] Interesting parallels in Germany – part eleven « Defend Geert Wilders […]

26 04 2010
Interesting Parallels in Germany – part twelve « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] Parallels in Germany – part twelve 26 04 2010 Continuing with our Parallels in Germany series, here’s something that was emailed to me by my ‘informant’, about the […]

3 05 2010
Interesting parallels in Germany – the road so far « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] Interesting parallels in Germany – part eleven […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: