"2. THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT §§ 143 - 160
(a) GENERAL PRINCIPLES §§ 143 - 147
143. The Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 5 § 1, the decision in issue must first of all be " LAWFUL ", including the observance of a procedure prescribed by law: in this respect the Convention refers back esentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It requires in addition, however, that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see HERCZEGFALVY v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244). Furthermore, the detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained. That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law, it must also be necessary in the circumstances ( see WITOLD LITWA v. Poland, no. 26.629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 - III)
144. In addition, sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds of deprivation of liberty; such a measure will not be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (ibid., § 49 ; see also , in particular, SAADI v. the United Kingdom (GC), no. 13.229/03, § 43, 29 January 2008, and JENDROWIAK v. Germany, no. 30.060/04, § 31, 14.April 2011).
145. As regards the deprivation of liberty of mentally disordered persons, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied:
FIRSTLY , he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind;
SECONDLY, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement;
THIRDLY, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder
(see WINTERWERP v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; SHTUKATUROV, cited above, § 114; and VARBANOV, cited above, § 45).
146. As to the second of the above conditions, the detention of a mentally disordered person may be necessary not only where the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him, for example, causing harm to himself or other persons (see HUTCHISON REID v. the United Kingdom, no. 50.272/99 , § 52, ECHR 2003 - IV)
147. The Court further reiterates that there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. In principle, the "DETENTION" of a person as a mental - health patient will be "LAWFUL" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) only if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropiate institution authorised for that purpose ( see ASHINGDANE, cited above, § 44, and PANKIEWICZ v. Poland , no. 34.151/04, §§ 42 - 45, 12 February 2008). However, subject to the forgoing, Article 5 § 1 (e) is not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions ( see ASHINGDANE, cited above, § 44, and HUTCHISON REID, cited above, § 49). "
Ganz im Gegensatz zu diesen zwingenden Erfordernissen einer " rechtmäßigen Anhaltung " wird unser WOLFGANG nun schon fast 10 Jahre in einer ganz primitiven HASCHERL - AUFBEWAHRUNGSANSTALT unter fürsorgerlichem Verschluß gehalten ohne auch nur die geringste Rechtsgrundlage !!! Es gibt weder im Salzburger Behindertengesetz, noch in irgendeiner bundesrechtlichen Vorschrift auch nur die geringste Rechtfertigung für diese Anhaltung. Sie ist ausschließlich Ausdruck der kriminellen Geschäftsprinzipien des Heimträgers "Lebenshilfe Salzburg", unterstützt durch die ebenso kriminellen Verwaltungspraktiken der Sozialabteilung 3 des Landes Salzburg. Und erschreckenderweise genauso unterstützt von der gesamten Richterschaft am hiesigen Bezirksgericht und Landesgericht, was nicht einmal der Oberste Gerichtshof in Wien für mangelhaft befunden hatte bei mehrfacher Gelegenheit zum Einschreiten !!!
Spätestens jetzt müßte die KOMMISSION 2 der Volksanwaltschaft begreifen, wie menschenrechtswidrig die gerügten Zustände hier im konkreten Anlaßfall sind . Warum werden von dieser Kommission die engsten Vertrauenspersonen des WOLFGANG nicht unmittelbar konsultiert und angesprochen, um ein unverfälschtes Bild von der Problemlage zu bekommen ??? Es kann nicht den geringsten Zweifel geben, daß es sich hier handelt um " AUSBEUTUNG & GEWALT & MISSBRAUCH " nach der Definition von Art. 16 BRK
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40102309/NOR40102309.pdf
sowie um eine " GEWAHRSAMSEINRICHTUNG " nach der Definition von Art.4 OPCAT
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCAT
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2007/287.pdf
CRIMINAL ARBITRARINESS IN THE CASE OF WOLFGANG !
(a) GENERAL PRINCIPLES §§ 143 - 147
143. The Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 5 § 1, the decision in issue must first of all be " LAWFUL ", including the observance of a procedure prescribed by law: in this respect the Convention refers back esentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It requires in addition, however, that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see HERCZEGFALVY v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244). Furthermore, the detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained. That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law, it must also be necessary in the circumstances ( see WITOLD LITWA v. Poland, no. 26.629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 - III)
144. In addition, sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds of deprivation of liberty; such a measure will not be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (ibid., § 49 ; see also , in particular, SAADI v. the United Kingdom (GC), no. 13.229/03, § 43, 29 January 2008, and JENDROWIAK v. Germany, no. 30.060/04, § 31, 14.April 2011).
145. As regards the deprivation of liberty of mentally disordered persons, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied:
FIRSTLY , he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind;
SECONDLY, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement;
THIRDLY, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder
(see WINTERWERP v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; SHTUKATUROV, cited above, § 114; and VARBANOV, cited above, § 45).
146. As to the second of the above conditions, the detention of a mentally disordered person may be necessary not only where the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him, for example, causing harm to himself or other persons (see HUTCHISON REID v. the United Kingdom, no. 50.272/99 , § 52, ECHR 2003 - IV)
147. The Court further reiterates that there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. In principle, the "DETENTION" of a person as a mental - health patient will be "LAWFUL" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) only if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropiate institution authorised for that purpose ( see ASHINGDANE, cited above, § 44, and PANKIEWICZ v. Poland , no. 34.151/04, §§ 42 - 45, 12 February 2008). However, subject to the forgoing, Article 5 § 1 (e) is not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions ( see ASHINGDANE, cited above, § 44, and HUTCHISON REID, cited above, § 49). "
Ganz im Gegensatz zu diesen zwingenden Erfordernissen einer " rechtmäßigen Anhaltung " wird unser WOLFGANG nun schon fast 10 Jahre in einer ganz primitiven HASCHERL - AUFBEWAHRUNGSANSTALT unter fürsorgerlichem Verschluß gehalten ohne auch nur die geringste Rechtsgrundlage !!! Es gibt weder im Salzburger Behindertengesetz, noch in irgendeiner bundesrechtlichen Vorschrift auch nur die geringste Rechtfertigung für diese Anhaltung. Sie ist ausschließlich Ausdruck der kriminellen Geschäftsprinzipien des Heimträgers "Lebenshilfe Salzburg", unterstützt durch die ebenso kriminellen Verwaltungspraktiken der Sozialabteilung 3 des Landes Salzburg. Und erschreckenderweise genauso unterstützt von der gesamten Richterschaft am hiesigen Bezirksgericht und Landesgericht, was nicht einmal der Oberste Gerichtshof in Wien für mangelhaft befunden hatte bei mehrfacher Gelegenheit zum Einschreiten !!!
Spätestens jetzt müßte die KOMMISSION 2 der Volksanwaltschaft begreifen, wie menschenrechtswidrig die gerügten Zustände hier im konkreten Anlaßfall sind . Warum werden von dieser Kommission die engsten Vertrauenspersonen des WOLFGANG nicht unmittelbar konsultiert und angesprochen, um ein unverfälschtes Bild von der Problemlage zu bekommen ??? Es kann nicht den geringsten Zweifel geben, daß es sich hier handelt um " AUSBEUTUNG & GEWALT & MISSBRAUCH " nach der Definition von Art. 16 BRK
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40102309/NOR40102309.pdf
sowie um eine " GEWAHRSAMSEINRICHTUNG " nach der Definition von Art.4 OPCAT
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCAT
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2007/287.pdf
CRIMINAL ARBITRARINESS IN THE CASE OF WOLFGANG !
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen