Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of that Strasbourg ECtHR

Excerpts from my complaint “Complaint with the ECtHR about tricky Munich judge“. BTW, my second greatly treasured Single judge decision.

“According to the C.’s knowledge, the President of SC Mrs. Mente was in contact with the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office in the period from June 2, 2020 to June 16, 2021 (A PSC 1, PSC 2) due to alleged insults of Judge E. by the C. (Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20) The C. is perplexed, how a court, which is in contact with the public prosecutor’s office Munich over a period of one year and was “supplied” in this period with submissions against the C. by Judge E., is able to judge independently and unprejudiced. Several negative decisions by Judge E. fell into this period. One wonders why a president of a social court does not preemptively relieve the judge of the cases. Perhaps it was assumed that the public prosecutor’s office would not grant access to the files. “False face must hide what the false heart doth know.””

A judge who files a criminal complaint for alleged insult is at the same time able to judge independently and unbiased? Seriously, ECtHR? That’s bold.

“Even more perplexing is why a judge is so eager to continue to judge after these declarations of no confidence. To suppress documents, to table fraudulent decisions in disregard of the BSG judgment of 24.11.2010 – B 11 AL 35/09 R (keyword “allowance” (“Freibetrag”)), to accept open racist insinuations from the JC unquestioned (sublease contract of the daughter deemed not credible), to ignore an important witness summons.”

A judge who waves through fraud by disregarding vital parts of a court decision of a higher court is acting properly? You must be kidding, ECtHR.

“A monetary adjustment from 2019 onwards decided by the Federal Cabinet, to which the JC deliberately did not comply (action in Sept. 2019, S 42 AS 1968/19), leaves him cold and he passes a complaint for failure to act of May 2020 on to the Bavarian LSG at a cost of € 560.00. There is nothing at all to decide for a judge here. It is virtually a law.”

What exactly is the purpose of a law then, ECtHR?

“He forces the C.’s daughter to appear in court in person under the threat of a penalty payment of € 1,000 in the event of non-appearance. (A 15) This in a case in which part of her earnings from a vacation job were requested by the JC by threatening confiscation. (S 42 AS 2594/16)”

So the ECtHR is of the opinion a judge can blatantly indulge in migrant voyeurism by forcing a migrant to appear in his court who has been defrauded by the Jobcenter Munich of her legally earned money during a vacation job? Interesting take, ECtHR. Kudos.

Not done with that, “Judge” Ehegartner resorts to a blatant lie. The power of attorney of my Tibetan daughter allegedly did not exist. Why not, after all, this is racist Germany, almost anything goes. Trouble is, the POA was faxed to the Munich court in Oct. 2019.

“Judge E. had deliberately falsely claimed at the hearing in Oct. 2020 in the presence of C’s lawyer that the C.’s daughter had not sent a power of representation (A 9) to the SC.”

Suppression of documents is “judge” Ehegartner’s go-to means.

“The part of the chairman of the 42nd chamber of the Munich SC, Judge Ehegartner (hereinafter ‘Judge E.’), in the representation of the interests of the JC includes suppression of documents, refusal to allow the lawyer to inspect files over two years in three cases concerning the C.’s daughter. He communicates with the C. instead of the lawyer. Not an isolated case at the SC according to Google Reviews!”

What would then be the purpose of Art. 6 3c ECHR (to defend himself through legal assistance)? Refusal of inspection of court files by the lawyer is condoned by the ECtHR? All that is deemed dispensable when a court from the Western part of Europe is involved, right? It is fairly obvious that the ECtHR is heavily negatively biased towards Eastern countries, ain’t it so?

“He insists on electronic forms of communication that do not exist at the JC.”

A whole slew of decisions is based on this requirement. The Jobcenter does not provide any form of submitting documents with a qualified electronic signature. This is Bavaria where hibernation in public offices runs twelve months. And get this, I sent an email to the criminal head of the JC, Anette Farrenkopf, in June requesting the name of Electronic Signature Card(s) they accept. No answer.

. . . . . . . . . .

Dinah Shelton, Professor of International Law Emeritus, provides an explanation in the Pdf ‘Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights‘:

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 rapporteur23 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.24 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.25 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, identify- ing the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications26 and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.27 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.

She cites a further convenient fact in footnote 24:

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.

For convenience sake (from Antoine Buyse’s Pdf ‘Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of the Admissibility Criterion in Article 35 § 3 (b) ECHR‘):

It could thus very well be that the admissibility criterion may continue its life in the margins of the Convention system. At the very least, it will become more invisible, since decisions by single judges usually remain unpublished.

There you go.

I am perplexed, ECtHR.

European Court of Human Rights judge Andreas Zünd dishes up another single-judge decision

No surprise here. Complaint from March 2022 ‘Complaint with the ECtHR about tricky Munich judge‘ conveniently shoved under the carpet. There it stays for one year before it gets dumped into the trash. Thought it might be advisable to submit my application in English in order to circumvent the German Connection at the court. Zap, pops up a judge from Switzerland.

Portrait of Andreas Zünd, judge elected in respect of Switzerland Portrait of the judge elected in respect of Switzerland, Mr Andreas Zünd

Judge Andreas Zünd (Switzerland)

Born on 8 February 1957, in Niederwil, Switzerland

  • Studies in Law, University of Bern, Switzerland, 1978-1982
  • Law Degree (lic. iur.), University of Bern, 1982
  • Bar exam, Canton of Aargau, Switzerland, 1984
  • PhD in Law (Dr. iur.), University of Bern, 1986
  • Law clerk, Court of Appeal, Canton of Aargau, 1986-1987
  • Law clerk, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 1987-1996
  • Substitute Judge, Court of Appeal, Canton of Aargau, 1989-2002
  • Military pre-trial Judge, 1993-1998
  • Substitute Judge, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 1996-2004
  • Judge, Court of Appeal, Canton of Aargau, 2002-2004
  • Judge, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 2004-2021
  • Member of the Criminal Law Division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 2004-2009
  • Second Public Law division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Member (2009-2021), President (2010-2016)
  • Judge of the European Court of Human Rights since 29 March 2021.

Andreas Zünd dishes up yet another single-judge decision. My second so far and chances are good that more will be coming. Salient, that despite my application is in English, he avails himself of the French language. Historical reasons perhaps? French/English animosity? You be the judge. His manners have all the appurtenances of an aloof court.

One should of course be aware how this court works. The judge has not read the application. He/she just signs. Applications are all pre-screened by the Registry (read ‘Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights‘ by Dinah Shelton) unless it is a big case, a very prominent person, or it is a complaint about an Eastern European country.

One thing immediately struck me. He has an impressive CV from 1978 till today. He is educated and every person I know at least tried hard to produce a signature that “projects what you want others to think of you“. Looking at his signature, I am not quite sure what to make of it. Is this the Alien Wingdings font? The man is over 60 and his signature resembles the scribbling of a slightly retarded teen. After all, “every time you draw your signature on a piece of paper, you make a statement to yourself and to the rest of the world, saying: “See, this is who I am. That’s what I want you to think of me. That’s the way I want to be seen and known. It does not matter what my real personality is.”

What does a small signature reflect?

“A very small signature shows lack of confidence to pull off day-to-day tasks. Such writers do not hope to get respect, acknowledgement or appreciation from others.”

“According to handwriting signature analysis, if a tiny signature co-exists with other handwriting strokes indicating low self-esteem, such as a low t-bar and small personal pronoun, it points to the writer’s diffidence and timidity.”

This can hardly be the case in this instance. Vanessa Van Edwards suggests:

“If you had a tiny signature, you might need to work on claiming your space a little more, and pumping yourself up. Don’t stick yourself in a small box if you don’t have to!”

Judge Zünd seems to be pumping himself down when he just skips the third, or is it the second letter of his last name.

Here is the translation of his single-judge decision:

(Repuête no.13992/22)
filed on 8 March 2022

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 25 May 2022 as a single judge in accordance with articles 24 § 2 and 27 of the Convention, has examined the above application as submitted.

The application is based on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention and Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention.

The Court finds, in the light of all the evidence in its possession, that the facts set out in the application fall within its jurisdiction, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by 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.

Andreas Zünd

Have been reading the court’s ‘Annual Report 2021‘ and this image below captures a general trend there.

Remarkable number of single judge decisions at the ECtHR in 2021

Even more remarkable when one compares the number of struck out decisions. It is a whopping 67% increase in 2021 over 2020. Again, do read the Pdf of Dinah Shelton and there are a lot more on the subject ‘single judge decisions’.

A whopping 67% increase of single judge decision at the ECtHR in 2021 over 2020.

Congrats from my side as well. More than deserved.

Further comment on Andreas Zünd’s (well, he just signed) decision.

2022 und schon der zweite Liebesbrief vom Bundesverfassungsgericht

Wir kommunizieren in esoterische Zeichen, mystischen Mantren, Klangkörpern. Diesmal von Amtsinspektorin Winkler und das mit freundlichen Grüssen. Lieblich.

1 BvR 910/22

Love is in the air, in the whisper of the tree
Love is in the air, in the thunder of the sea
And I don’t know if I’m just dreaming
Don’t know if I feel safe
But it’s something that I must believe in
And it’s there when you call out my name

Wo wird dieser Klangkörper seine spirituelle Kraft entfalten? Erfahrungswerte deuten auf dies.

Im Maschinenraum des Bundesverarschungsgerichts


Schloßbezirk 3
76131 Karlsruhe

Fax: 0721-9101-382

20. April 2022

Az. AR 2021/22

Guten Tag beim Bundesverfassungsgericht,

Wie erwartet erhielt ich auch diesmal – ich glaube mittlerweile die sechste – hektografierte Mitteilung, wie sie auch 96% der anderen sich beschwerenden verlässlich pro Jahr erhalten, nach der “Bedenken bestehen bezüglich der Zulässigkeit” meiner Verfassungsbeschwerde, die “lediglich die vermeintlich verletzten Grundrechte oder grundrechtsähnlichen Rechte” benennt. 

Diesmal fand die Sachbearbeitung, lies Transfer in den Rundordner, durch Frau Haarwaldt statt. Hier herrscht lobenswerte Arbeitsteilung. Keine Arbeitsteilung liegt bei Regierungsdirektorin Frau Krause-Reul im ‘Maschinenraum’ (so vor, die natürlich solche Verfassungsbeschwerden erst gar nicht liest. Stattdessen firmiert sie unterschriftslos als “Regierungsdirektorin – AR-Referentin”. Unterschrieben bzw. beglaubigt ist die Hektografie dann von jemandem mit zwei unleserlichen Buchstaben, um dem Regierungsauftrag zu genügen.

Dass an dem obersten Gericht ein/e Regierungsvertreter/in die Vorselektion betreibt, sollte nicht einen Zweifel an einem Rechtsstaat aufkommen lassen. Sie dient der Ökonomisierung des Rechts unter die Staatsgewalt. Anders ausgedrückt, jeder Staat ist ein Rechtsstaat, denn anders kann ein Staat sich nicht legitimieren.

Eine noch mögliche Anhörungsrüge beim edlen Bundesverfassungsgericht würde lediglich die Chronologie verlängern, denn selbstverständlich hat das Verfassungsgericht recht in seinen Bedenken gegen meine unmassgebliche und standesniedrige Einschätzung verletzter Grundrechte oder grundrechtsähnlicher Rechte, wenn …

  • ein Richter einer Anwältin grundsätzlich Akteneinsicht verweigert in drei Fällen meine Migranten-Tochter betreffend. Dies sind probate Mittel zur jurisdiktionellen Absegnung von Betrug. Art. 6 Abs. 3c EMRK ist dem Gericht entbehrlich. Deutschland ist ein Rassistenland par excellence;
  • ein Richter die Anwältin grundsätzlich übergeht und stattdessen mit dem Kläger kommuniziert, wie auch auf Google Review zu lesen. Was sind schon Anwälte für einen Kangaroo Court wie das SG München? Pure Staffage und dispensabel und Art. 6 Abs. 3c EMRK war schon angesprochen;
  • die Mutter unserer Tochter einen Kredit aufnimmt für Flugkosten nach Nepal, um ihre Tochter nach vier Jahren einmal zu sehen und dieser rassistische Richter Ehegartner mit dem Jobcenter wie üblich kungelt;
  • ein Richter eines Sozialgerichts (!) Urkundenunterdrückung im Verbund mit der staatlichen rassistischen Verbrecher Behörde Jobcenter München zum Zweck des Betrugs betreibt;
  • ein Richter eine vom Bundeskabinett für 2019 beschlossene Regelsatzerhöhung nicht beachtet, um den Betrug zu legitimieren und seiner Karrieregeilheit zu frönen. All das geht beim BVerfG locker über den Tisch;
  • ein Richter in seiner Bettlägerigkeit und Subservienz mit dem Jobcenter München auf Email-Formen besteht, die es beim Jobcenter München gar nicht gibt;
  • ein Richter trotz Vollmacht der Tochter für ihren Vater und der Mitteilung, sie wünsche “keinen Kontakt in jedweder Form von den Sozialgerichten betreffend den andauernden Streitigkeiten” diese dennoch anschreibt, denn Stalking ist klassenspezifisch und manch Richter braucht seine subtilen, geschmacklosen Plaisierchen. Nicht genug damit setzt er in seinem perfiden Migranten-Voyeurismus auch noch zur Veralberung einer jungen Frau an. Ein Stalker und schnöseliger Richter Ehegartner benötigt eins dringend im Land der Hässlichen Deutschen, der Bengel gehört erzogen!
  • ein Richter den rassistischen Verbrecher namens Jürgen Sonneck, der unter falschem Namen operierte als Beamter, deckt und nicht zur verlangten Vernehmung lädt. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht zeigte sich schon in 2015 und 2018 nicht interessiert an dieser niederträchtigen Type. (Details siehe 1 BvR 2141/15 und 1 BvR 246/18) So etwas kehrt das Bundesverfassungsgericht unter den Teppich. Art. 6 Abs. 3d EMRK interessiert das BVerfG nicht.

Seine Rassismus-Affinität hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mehrfach unter Beweis gestellt. Siehe Kopftuch und das Sikh Urteil. Es ist dieser blasierte, westliche kulturelle Alleinvertretungsanspruch des alten Kontinents basierend auf kruder christlicher Doktrin und die arrogante Deutungshoheit eines Kontinents, der in Modder lebte als anderswo Hochkulturen existierten. Und belästige keiner das Tribunal auf dem Forum Germanum mit einem Gedicht gediegenen Geschmacks, denn wer auf edlen Rössern der Eitelkeit einher reitet, dem steht sartorielle Libertinage nur allzu gut an.

Zurück in die aktuellen Zeitengeläufte war es ein angenehmes Auspizium als die damalige Kanzlerin Merkel den Präsidenten des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Stephan Harbarth zum Dinner lud. Wer daran Anstoss nimmt, hat den Regierungsauftrag dieses Gerichts in der preussisch-teutonischen Justiz nicht verstanden und eine aktuell anstehende einschlägige Buchveröffentlichung thematisiert föderale Tradition daselbst. Mittlerweile ist der Bundesjustizminister und Diplom Rechtsanwalt (Dr.) Marco Buschmann ein halbes Jahr im Amt. Es stünde ihm gut an, eine solche Geste nun zu replizieren. Gesprächsthema könnte sein ‘der Freidemokrat als Brahmane unter den Demokraten im 21. Jahrhundert’.

“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.”

In absentia lucis, Tenebrae vincunt

Nazi at the German Federal Constitutional Court

Wiltraut Rupp-von Brünneck (2nd from right)

Not that much of a surprise, but there you go. The SPIEGEL reported this and a book will be available (in German). Here she is featured on Wikipedia, Wiltraut Rupp-von Brünneck (also in German). Excerpt translated:

“Wiltraut Rupp-von Brünneck, daughter of a lawyer in the Prussian Ministry of Justice, graduated from high school in 1931.[1] After studying law at the universities of Berlin, Königsberg, Göttingen and Heidelberg, Wiltraut von Brünneck passed the first state examination in 1939. She was then drafted into the Reich Labor Service and served as a Wehrmacht helper in the air defense from 1939 to 1941. During the Nazi era, she was a member of the NS-Frauenschaft, wrote programmatic essays in National Socialist journals (“Die Aufgaben der Frau im Recht”, “Die Industriearbeiterin im Recht”), and discussed the position of women as “guardians of the law” in the “Volksgemeinschaft”. She praised the “closeness to reality” of National Socialist ideology, which corresponded to the “essence” of women. After working as an assistant to one of the crown jurists of the National Socialist legal view, Wolfgang Siebert, at the Friedrich Wilhelm University (later Humboldt University) in Berlin, she moved to the Reich Ministry of Justice in 1943 as a Regierungsrätin (government councilor) and took on an advisor position.”