COMPLAINT
TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY LAW
7. Member State or public body which, according to the complainant
Community law has not followed: Germany
The Administrative Court in Münster / Beckmann judge denied me my rights
Article 13 of the ECHR and executes a letter dated 01/08/2013 that I
as a party in the proceedings not, can not obtain the information (see Appendix). –
I did, however, no information at all, but an effective remedy
(B.B.) i.s.d. Article 13 of the Convention, so that especially the B.B. Violations of Articles 3 and 6
ECHR be eliminated or the ECHR required efficacy in
Complaints gem. Article 13 of the Convention is respected and implemented.
So here is a redefinition of my complaint gem. Article 13 ECHR,
I etc. a request for access I never asked. – In addition, the
Judge Beckmann his alleged administrative unfounded. This
That obligation is in Germany in the Administrative Procedure Act
within the Administrative Procedure Act § 39 regulated. – The court ought to have stated,
therefore according a complaint. Article 13 ECHR process a shareholding
presupposes. This particular in respect of the standard hierarchy. Finally
There remains every European citizen but liberty judgments and orders
view in public databases also German Justice portals
gem and infringements of Community law in the context of an appeal.
Article 13 ECHR to complain if necessary. – If a process for participation
Complaint pursuant. Article 13 of the Convention would be necessary, it would moreover
Human rights defenders and human rights organizations be denied
or made impossible, violations of the Convention by German courts
and / or meet with other agencies effectively. Also, a
More eyes principle to this effect by European citizens from other
Member States are fed a complete ineffectiveness. – In
addition, the judge Beckmann any provision of national law
named according to which a participation process is a prerequisite for a
Complaint pursuant. Article 13 of the ECHR to rise. However, this would
Due to its o.a. Duty to give reasons was his duty.
Further, the public interest in an effective complaint is acc. Article
13 ECHR, where in this case is because of the infringement of bb
Decision of the German Federal Supreme Court on statelessness but also
2
by ignoring the Rl. 2004/83/EC “de facto” stateless in the country
deported from which they are pursued. – Moreover, it is in itself
the plaintiff is a human rights defender and journalist for
should be punished, that he abuses in Germany
reported. A clear discrimination because of his belief as
Human rights defenders I.S.d. EU Annex Doc 100111-06 for breach of
Prohibition of discrimination under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. –
same fact of discrimination is present with me, as the judge
Beckmann of VG Münster my worldview as
Human rights defenders accepted not because he acc my complaint acc. Article
13 ECHR accepted.
1. First Article 13 ECHR
Second Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights for
2. Violation of bid validity (see ECHR Grand Chamber, judgment
of 8 6th 2006 to 75529/01 (Sürmeli / Germany), NJW 2006, 2389).
3. Third Article 4 Rl. 2004/83/EC due to lack of testing (B.B.)
4. Article 3 of the ECHR because of removal of a “de facto” one Staaatenlosen
obvious pursuers country
5. Article 6 because of an unfair trial by a “false judgment” (bb)
6. Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
7. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
8. Artkel 54 of the Charter
9. EU Annex Doc 100111-06
10. Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
11. Article 14 ECHR
My justifications for sham judgments: http://menschenrechtsverfahren.wordpress.com/scheinurteile-abgrunde-der-rechtsprechung/
15. Confidentiality (tick the appropriate box on) 3:
x “I hereby ermachtige the Commission, in its contacts with the
Authorities of the Member State against which the complaint is directed my,
To reveal identity. “
“I herewith request the Commission, in its contacts with the authorities
of the Member State against which the complaint is directed mean identity
not to disclose. “
16. Place, date and signature of the complainant / representative:
Gettorf the 01/13/2013
The response received Mr. Hensel from Administrative Court of Münster. It reads:
“Mr. Hensel, because you were not involved in the complaint process 8 K 373/07 involved, unfortunately, I can give you any information to do so.
Beckmann
Presiding Judge of the Administrative Court”
Normal administrative process has been kept secret? Why? Maybe because the courts of Germany, and not only judicial, trying to crush a person? Despite the fact that Mr. Dmitrij Adamow already fairly well-known human rights activist, his own human rights are openly violated by various bodies and agencies in Germany. Human rights are violated. I’m not talking about the rights of human rights defenders. Where to watch the human rights organizations in Germany? Why is the European Commission does not intervene in the process? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Why does not work in Germany the European Convention on Human Rights? What does the U.S. State Department, the prime minister of Great Britain, the French parliament? Why all the silence?
Why Europe needs from the world of human rights? Why Europe and the United States sent its soldiers to a country whose rulers violate the rights of its citizens? Why, when Europe itself does not respect human rights. Blatantly violate the honor and dignity of the human rights defenders. Where is morality?
