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

Potocki_Westerdiek

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

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. (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

. . . . . . . . . .

DECISION

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
 
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)

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

publishable

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.

ARTICLE 24

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.