2nd anniversary of ECHR Euro Clowns’ covering up German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck’s idiocy to hide behind the alias “C. Paucher”


German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek, imbued with exquisit cultural and symbolic capital, and complemented by habitus. Section V – European Court of Human Rights. Expertly executed by judge Potocki in Single-judge decision.

The complaint and background is here and here the letter from a year ago.

Complaint 51482/18


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. (1)

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

. . . . . . . . . .


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
Just trust The German Connection. No relation to The French Connection. I have that on good authority from “Popeye” Doyle.

The German Connection at the ECHR.

And here is His Stupidity Jürgen Sonneck in person. Why did nobody tell moron Jürgen the IP address is transmitted when you send an email to police?
C. Paucher, or is it Jürgen Sonneck from Munich’s Referat für Bildung und Sport?

Strasbourg Observers Blog refuses to post comment about a highly questionable ECHR Single-judge decision

Which is strange as the blog’s aims are

The Strasbourg Observers Blog is based at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University in Belgium. The Blog aims to bring new judgments of the European Court of Human Rights under the attention of interested scholars, practitioners and students. To that end, bloggers offer critical analyses of the legal reasoning of the ECtHR by way of short commentaries. The Blog also aims to assess recent legal, political and social developments in Europe through the lens of the Court’s case law.

Not done with that …

The project’s main objective was to study the European Court of Human Rights’ case-law with the aim of proposing innovative solutions to strengthen the consistency and persuasiveness of the Court’s legal reasoning so as to improve its accountability and transparency.

Under the title “European Court of Human Rights single-judge decisions (still) deny justice and risk weakening UN treaty body system” a guest blogger criticizes

the Court’s continued practice of issuing bare admissibility decisions in single-judge formation undercuts its leadership role in articulating human rights law, denies relief to individuals who may have a legitimate human rights claim, and threatens to diminish the protective role of both the Court and UN treaty bodies at a time when infringements of a broad range of human rights are on the increase.

A comment two times submitted went nowhere. What standards do Strasbourg Observers have? Double standards for sure, as this was not the first time they did not publish a comment. I simply and brazenly pointed to this heinous deed of the fucking German civil servant idiot, Jürgen Sonneck from Munich, or as he likes to call himself when contacting Munich police, “C. Paucher”. So here is a pointer to what the guys at SO do not like to see.

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

The Strasbourg Court Establishes Standards on Blocking Access to Websites. Do German ministries listen?


Federal Ministry of Family Affairs
Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs
Federal Employment Agency
The uncommunicative (maulfaule) State Minister for Culture and the Media

Social Court Munich
Bavarian Social Court

Aug. 29, 2020

Subject: The Strasbourg Court Establishes Standards on Blocking Access to Websites
(related: Germany’s Blocking policy on Social Network Twitter)

Ladies, gents,

The ongoing burlesque and saga presented by your ministries’ and courts’ civil servants has been and still is bordering on the ludicrous and reached embarrassing proportions. Not surprisingly, entertainment reached mind-boggling heights just prior to this weekend’s handling of the ‘anti-coronavirus’ rally. However, such are the Germans when being confronted with free speech vis-à-vis their historical tradition. Or as Oscar Wilde mused: ‘There is nothing like race, is there?’

May I draw your attention to the recent ruling of the European Court Of Human Rights CASE OF OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12468/15 and 2 others) from June 23, 2020. The abstract reads as follows:

Article 10 • Freedom to receive and impart information • Unjustified wholesale blocking of opposition online media outlets in breach of requirement to specify offending content • Prior restraint on publications in absence of judicial decision on the illegality of the impugned content • Wholesale blocking of access to an entire website being an extreme measure comparable to banning a newspaper or television station • Blocking access to an entire website having practical effect of extending scope of blocking order far beyond illegal content originally targeted • Domestic law lacking safeguards against excessive and arbitrary effects of blocking measures • Notification and involvement of website owners in blocking proceedings not required by law • Blocking measures not sanctioned by court or other independent adjudicatory body • No prior assessment of impact and immediate enforcement of the blocking measure depriving interested parties of the opportunity to appeal • Domestic courts’ failure to perform a Convention-compliant review considering less intrusive means
Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10 • Effective remedy • Failure of courts to consider the substance of grievance or to examine lawfulness or proportionality of effects of blocking order

Strasbourg Observers concluded by stating:

Taken together with the previous judgments of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, and Kablis v. Russia, the Strasbourg Court has now provided national governments with a comprehensive set of standards on drafting Convention-compliant internet laws. With that said, considering the tightening grip of the authorities on the internet and social media platforms in countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Russia, it will not be a surprise if the Court is ‘provided with more opportunities’ to further refine its standards as the internet technologies continue to transform societies.

The last time I checked a map, Berlin, Munich and Nuremberg appeared to be cities in Germany. Quelle surprise about the similarities.

Having said that, I demand that your illegal blocking of our Twitter Account @ErebusSagace is immediately lifted by @BMAS_Bund, @BMFSFJ and @Bundesagentur.

It is also seriously suggested the presidents of the Social Court Munich, Dr. Edith Mente, and the Bavarian Social Court’s, Günther Kolbe (sadly no Dr. title!), reflect on their democratic disposition.

Furthermore, I trust you are aware of the very recent ruling “The right to obtain information based on the IFG also applies to Twitter direct messages” and I am looking forward to enter into communication with the BMFSFJ’s Missus Dr. Julia Kasselt in matters related.

Lastly, I would be remiss not to remind you Germans to train your criminal civil servants better. Jürgen Sonneck, aka C. Paucher, is a fucking moron. That’s not how you handle communication with police using a false name. Hell, your criminals need to get more professional.

Why – do they shut Me out of Heaven?
Did I sing – too loud?
But – I can say a little”Minor”
Timid as a Bird!

Wouldn’t the Angels try me
Just – once – more Just
But don’t – shut the door’!

Oh, If I – were the Gentleman
In the ‘White Robe”
And they – were the little Hand – that knocked –
Could – I – forbid?

Emily Dickinson

Di vos incolumes custodiant

NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR

Here is the antipasto or abstract if you will of the Pdf of the same title by Grégor Puppinck, PhD, of the The European Centre for Law and Justice.

NGOs have an increasing influence on and within international institutions, particularly within the human rights protection system.

This report shows that at least 22 of the 100 permanent judges who have served on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) between 2009 and 2019 are former officials or collaborators of seven NGOs that are highly active before the Court. Twelve judges are linked to the Open Society Foundation (OSF) network, seven to the Helsinki committees, five to the International Commission of Jurists, three to Amnesty International, and one each to Human Rights Watch, Interights and the A.I.R.E. Centre. The Open Society network is distinguished by the number of judges linked to it and by the fact that it funds the other six organisations mentioned in this report.

Since 2009, there have been at least 185 cases in which at least one of these seven NGOs is officially involved in the proceedings. Of these, in 88 cases, judges sat in a case in which the NGO with which they were linked was involved. For example, in the case of Big Brother Watch v. the United Kingdom, still pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, 10 of the 16 applicants are NGOs funded by the OSF, as are 6 of the NGOs acting as third parties. Of the 17 judges who have sat in the Grand Chamber, 6 are linked to the applicant and intervening NGOs.

Over the same period, there were only 12 cases in which a judge withdrew from a case, apparently because of a link with an NGO involved in the case.

This situation calls into question the independence of the Court and the impartiality of the judges and is contrary to the rules which the ECHR itself imposes on States in this area. It is all the more problematic as the Court’s power is exceptional.

It is necessary to remedy this situation. To this end, greater attention should be paid in particular to the choice of candidates for the posts of judges, avoiding the appointment of activists. This report also proposes solutions to ensure the transparency of interests and links between applicants, judges and NGOs, and formalise the procedures of withdrawal and recusal.

Aware of the value of the human rights protection system in Europe and the need to preserve it, the ECLJ hopes that this report will be received as a positive contribution to the proper functioning of the Court.

The paper starts off intruigingly on page 5. Be prepared for some juicy details further down and even one howler. The name Soros and his Open Society Foundation and Soros Foundation-Latvia pop up repeatedly. In this vein interested Tweeters may have realized that the German Verfassungsblog.de increasingly serves up articles critical of Eastern states, most notably Poland and Hungary, while at the same time Western European states are on the backburner. Anyway, here page 5:

A reading of the curricula vitae of the judges who sat for the last ten years (between 1 January 2009 and 1 October 2019), makes it possible to identify seven NGOs which are both active at the Court and have among their former collaborators at least one person who has sat as a permanent judge of the ECHR since 2009. Out of the 100 permanent judges who have served during this period, it appears that 22 had strong links, prior to their election as judges, with one or more of these seven organisations, either as administrators, beneficiaries of their funding or as significant and regular participants in their activities. In addition, considering also more indirect links, several other judges could be added to this list.

This study goes further, however, to observe the interactions between NGOs and judges, after the latter’s entry into office. It appeared here from the examination of the 185 cases in which these seven NGOs have visibly acted over the past ten years, that on numerous occasions judges have sat in cases brought or supported by the NGO with which they had collaborated. The links between judges and NGOs are therefore deeper and more complex than it usually appears. The purpose of this study, based on in-depth research (see appendices), is to highlight this significant reality and to question its causes, the difficulties it poses, and the means to remedy it.

It then delves into the Former professional links between NGOS and judges and serves up a Factual presentation of those links on page 6.

Seven NGOs have been identified as being active before the Court and including among their former collaborators at least one person who has served as a permanent judge of the ECHR since 2009. These are (in alphabetical order) A.I.R.E. Center (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Helsinki committees and foundations network, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Interights (International Center for the Judicial Protection of Human Rights), and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) and its various branches, in particular the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI). Collaborations between NGOs and future judges exist to varying degrees, from official responsibilities within NGOs to meaningful participation in their activities.

Page 8 lists the judges who have collaborated to varying degrees with the Open Society Foundation (OSF). However, …

This phenomenon is not limited to members of the Court. For example, Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe from 2012 to 2018, was also director of programs of the Open Society of Latvia until 2012. In 2009, he explained that the Open Society wishes to create a new man – homo sorosensus [in reference to Soros] – man of open society, as opposed to homo sovieticus. (16) Within the scope of his official activities, he condemned several initiatives by the Hungarian government, notably the so-called “anti-Soros” bill.

Here is foot note 16 and it is quite a treat:

Nils Muižnieks, Creating the “Open Society Man” (and Woman!), Open Society News, Fall 2009, p. 6: “Many of us (that is veteran staff, board members, and/or grantees of the various branches of the Open Society Institute) assumed that within two decades we could help create a new “open society man.” This “new man”—homo sorosensus—would replace homo sovieticus, whose remains would slowly decompose on the ash heap of history (located in a dark alley behind the gleaming main streets of the new, “normal” open societies we would build).” https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/open-society-news-eastern-europe-where-do-open- societies-stand-20-years-later#publications_download (visited on 01/02/2020).

How is this leaning possible? Well it has to do with shrewd money allocation by, you guessed it, none other than George Soros.

The election of NGO lawyers to the ECHR has multiple causes.
One of them results from the fact that in certain countries, lawyers who are both experienced in human rights matters and who have a certain independence from the government can mainly be identified within NGOs. This is compounded by the importance of the presence and influence of certain NGOs in “small” countries. Most of the judges who were salaried employees or officials of NGOs come from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Romania. For example, in Albania, a poor and highly corrupted country, (19) two of the three candidates for the judge election in 2018 were leaders of the Open Society Foundation. One of them was elected. (20) The Open Society Foundation has invested more than $ 131 million in this country since 1992. (21) Likewise, the last two judges elected in respect of Latvia are collaborators of the Riga Law School, founded by the Soros Foundation of Latvia, which invested more than $ 90 million in this country between 1992 and 2014. (22) The two latest Bulgarian judges also come from NGOs supported by the OSF. (23) In such small countries, the OSF and its foundations have become inescapable for anyone involved in social and media matters. They are major employers and funders. The OSF currently spends more than 90 million euros per year in Europe, mainly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. (24)

Do read the foot notes on page 9 and 10! On page 13-17 the ECLJ paper deals with the lack of transparency and Judges dealing with cases brought by, or with the support of, “their” NGONot to miss.

There is also a pretty large discrepancy in the amount of funding of NGOs compared to the ECHR (page 19).

As in any ecosystem, for it to be sustainable and virtuous, a balance must be established between the main body (the public bodies) and its complementary bodies (NGOs). The large NGOs mentioned in this report already largely dominate the human rights discourse in civil society. The risk is that this power will extend more directly to international bodies protecting human rights, and in particular to the ECHR. On this point, we can observe that the annual budget allocated by the OSF to its action in Europe is 90 million dollars, against 70 million euros for the ECHR.

NGOs, Private actors with no democratic legitimacy.

NGOs, just like intermediary bodies, fill the “democratic loophole” of supranational governance, but are not themselves democratic, even if they are generally called “civil society” organizations, as opposed to the authorities. NGOs have no other democratic legitimacy than that conferred on them by their grassroots and members. The values they defend can certainly give them political prestige and ideological legitimacy, but these cannot replace the specificity of popular support. In theory, the more representative an NGO, the more human and financial support it has. But the system is distorted when NGOs owe their existence and funding only to a very limited number of people or institutions. The power of these NGOs then depends less on their representativeness than on their funding and proximity with the bodies they set out to influence. Financial power is then enough to give the illusion of legitimacy. Such organizations, even very active and visible in society, in fact only represent the interests and ideas of their founders and funders, be them public or private. Thus, the organization Interights, which was very active at the ECHR, brutally ceased all activity following the loss of patrons, and lack of real support among the population. Similarly, the Soros foundations in Hungary preferred to move to Austria, after their foreign funding was subject to heavy taxation. Thus, the NGOs with the greatest democratic legitimacy are not necessarily the richest, but they owe their solidity to their rooting within the population.

There are Few withdrawals due to links between judges and NGOs but this one is a howler (page 17/18):

Concerning the vast majority of withdrawals; their causes are diverse. Judge Bîrsan had to withdraw in all cases concerning Romania until the end of his mandate after his wife, a magistrate, was investigated for corruption.

The paper further deals with The lack of guarantees on the independence and impartiality of judges and cites as a positive example the British precedent of Lord Hoffmann in the famous Pinochet case before it concludes thus:

It remains to see what the ECtHR should do with its past most problematic judgments. According to its own case law, those cases should be judged again, following the example of the House of Lords in the Pinochet case. This should be the case especially if a party requests the revision of such judgment, according to rule 80 of the Rules of the Court.

You are encouraged to read the whole Pdf including the foot notes which are omitted here.

And the latest Report from the Euro Clowns at the #ECHR in 2019


The Euro Clowns Combo – just before lunch is served.

The ANNUAL REPORT 2019 – hot off the charts.

59,800 pending applications (increase of 6%)

33,288 applications declared inadmissible or struck out by single judges!!!

Who needs these blokes?

Here are some numbers of prior years:

The number of Single-Judge decisions in 2011 was 100,000, in 2015 they struck out 36,300 complaints, in 2016 they eliminated 30,100 cases, in 2017 out went 60,150 complaints and 2018 some 33,200 cases got the axe.

Let us consult the lofty European Convention on Human Rights.


Registry and rapporteurs

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

Oh really? It is BULLSHIT because in Rule 18A2 you read about “Non-judicial rapporteurs“. You heard that right, NON-JUDICIAL rapporteurs!

Rules of Court, 1 August 2018, Registry of the Court, Strasbourg.

Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs

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.

Here is Dinah Shelton of George Washington University Law School in “Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights

“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’s more:

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.”

Or as Dinah L. Shelton put it:

“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.”

Here is a damning assessment in “Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system” by Gerards and Glas from Utrecht in The Netherlands:

“It has been well documented that non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. When they allocate cases to the single judges, these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case.”

It gets better:

“Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file.

Given that the single-judge decisions currently make up nearly 80% of all the applications disposed of, this means that in all these cases, the decisions are taken in substance by Registry staff. This may be problematic from a perspective of independence, since it means an important responsibility for non-judicial rapporteurs who do not need to meet the strict requirements that are set for judges.”

That fulfills the essentials for a Clown Court.

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).”

The problem of Europe is that it is a hodgepodge of culturally, politically and judicially different nation states without a common goal or aspiration.

The Strasbourg Court does not sit at the apex of an integrated court structure. Rather, it is a court set up by a treaty among participating countries, and it operates independently of the courts of any of the member states. It exists solely to interpret and apply the provisions of the Convention, and there is no national body of law upon which it is competent to rule. The participating countries do not share a common source of law and have major cultural differences. A substantial number are, at best, emerging democracies. The problems of administering a single system of fundamental rights in such a context can be formidable. Thus, there are legitimate issues as to exactly what the nature of the review of member state decisions should be.”

Don’t forget to listen to Nigel Farage’s farewell address.