"II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION §§ 161 - 178
161. The applicant complained that he had been unable to have the lawfulness of his placement in the Pastra social care home reviewed by a court. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. THE PARTIES ' SUBMISSIONS §§ 162 - 167
1. THE APPLICANT §§ 162 - 164
162. The applicant submitted that domestic law did not provide for any specific remedies in request of his situation, such as a periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of his placement in a home for people with mental disorders. He added that, since he was deemed incapable of taking legal action on his own, domestic law did not afford him the possibility of applying to a court for permission to leave the Pastra social care home. He stated that he had likewise been unable to seek to have the placement agreement terminated, in view of the conflict of interests with his guardian, who at the same time was the director of the home.
163. The applicant further noted that he had not been allowed to apply to the courts to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 277 of the CCP (see § 51 above) and that, moreover, such action would not have led to a review of the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty but solely to a review of the conditions justifying partial guardianship in his case.
164. He further submitted that the procedure provided for in Articles 113 and 115 of the FC ( see §§ 49 - 50 above) in theory afforded his close relatives the right to ask the mayor to replace the guardian or to compel the mayor to terminate the placement agreement. However, this had been an indirect remedy not accesible to him, since his half - sister and his father's second wife had not been willing to initiate such a procedure.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARISTAN §§ 165 - 167
165. The Government submitted that, since the purpose of the applicant's placement in the home had been to provide social services, he could at any time have asked for the placement agreement to be terminated without the courts needing to be involved. In their submission, in so far as the applicant alleged a con flict of interests with his guardian, he could have relied on Article 123, paragraph 1, of the FC ( see § 50 above) and requested the guardianship authority to appoint an AD HOC REPRESENTATIVE , who could then have consented to a change of permanent residence.
166. The Government further contended that the applicant's close relatives had not availed themselves of the possibility open for some of them under Articles 113 and 115 of the FC of requesting the guardianship authority to replace his guardian or of challenging steps taken by the latter. They added that in the event of a refusal, his relatives could have appealed to a court, which would have considered the merits of the case and, if appropiate , appointed a new guardian, who would then have terminated the placement agreement. This, in the Government's submission, would have enabled them to challenge in substance the agreement between Ms R.P. and the Pastra social care home.
167. Lastly, the Government submitted that an action for restoration of legal capacity ( under Article 277 of the CCP - see § 51 above) constituted a remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 since, if a sufficient improvement in the applicant's health had been observed and he had been released from guardianship, he would have been free to leave the home "
Nun zur vergleichbaren, schier ausweglosen Situation in unserem Anlaßfall:
1. Die sogenannte "vollstationäre Unterbringung" in einer solchen Hascherlaufbewahrungsanstalt nach den 9 völlig verschiedenen landesrechtlichen Regelungen wird eben nicht als " DETENTION " angesehen von den Verfassungsrechtlern von FELIX AUSTRIA, sondern als der Ausdruck der allerhöchsten Stufe landesfürstlichen Gnadenerweises !!! Denn sonst müßte man ja wirklich auch hier denselben wirksamen Rechtsschutz einführen wie im strafrechtlichen Grundrechtsbeschwerdegesetz und im psychiatrischen Unterbringungsgesetz. Wie schon mehrfach ausgeführt, versagt hier auch kläglich der Rechtsschutz durch das Heimaufenthaltsgesetz, weil die Konditionen einer bescheidförmigen Heimeinweisung schlichtweg von allen völlig verleugnet werden !
2. Die Befreiung von den Fesseln einer völlig entarteten familienfremden "Sachwalterschaft" ist hierzulande schlichtweg überhaupt unmöglich gemacht ! Der Betroffene selbst hat zwar rein theoretisch immer die volle Parteistellung und kann jeden Tag einen neuen Antrag stellen auf Befreiung von diesen Fesseln, aber in den allermeisten Fällen werden die armseligen Hascherl von den Richtern überhaupt nicht ernst genommen und jeder Versuch von außen, selbige zu unterstützen durch Rechtsberatung und Verfahrensunterstützung wird von den argwöhnischen Richtern als unverzeihliches Sakrileg betrachtet und führt zur Bedrohung mit strafrechtlchen Konsequenzen für diese unerwünschten Unterstützer. Nächsten Angehörigen ist in diesen Dingen Parteistellung und Antragsrecht leider nach wie vor verwehrt durch die seinerzeitige Sabotagetätigkeit der sogenannten "Richtervereinigung" anläßlich des ministeriellen Begutachtungsverfahrens zum SWRÄG 2006. Siehe dazu die Erläuterungen zum § 278 ABGB idF 385 ME /XXII.GP
!http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385/imfname_056782.pdf
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385/index.shtml
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385_41/imfname_060144.pdf
Seit mehr als nun schon 9 1/2 Jahren werden die Unterstützer des betroffenen WOLFGANG S. im Kreise herumgeschickt von den Richtern am hiesigen Bezirksgericht, Landesgericht und auch vom Obersten Gerichtshof. Diese Richter betreiben systematische Rechtsbeugung in der festen Überzeugung, daß es niemals jemandem gelingen wird, die Menschenrechtswidrigkeit dieser hinterhältigen & heimtückischen Manöver aufzudecken und zu beseitigen. Sie haben sich damit aber sicherlich verrechnet, es ist nur mehr eine Frage der Zeit, bis ein Urteil des EGMR in Straßburg sämtliche Dimensionen dieser großangelegten Rechtsbeugung offenbart und verurteilt !
161. The applicant complained that he had been unable to have the lawfulness of his placement in the Pastra social care home reviewed by a court. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. THE PARTIES ' SUBMISSIONS §§ 162 - 167
1. THE APPLICANT §§ 162 - 164
162. The applicant submitted that domestic law did not provide for any specific remedies in request of his situation, such as a periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of his placement in a home for people with mental disorders. He added that, since he was deemed incapable of taking legal action on his own, domestic law did not afford him the possibility of applying to a court for permission to leave the Pastra social care home. He stated that he had likewise been unable to seek to have the placement agreement terminated, in view of the conflict of interests with his guardian, who at the same time was the director of the home.
163. The applicant further noted that he had not been allowed to apply to the courts to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 277 of the CCP (see § 51 above) and that, moreover, such action would not have led to a review of the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty but solely to a review of the conditions justifying partial guardianship in his case.
164. He further submitted that the procedure provided for in Articles 113 and 115 of the FC ( see §§ 49 - 50 above) in theory afforded his close relatives the right to ask the mayor to replace the guardian or to compel the mayor to terminate the placement agreement. However, this had been an indirect remedy not accesible to him, since his half - sister and his father's second wife had not been willing to initiate such a procedure.
2. THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARISTAN §§ 165 - 167
165. The Government submitted that, since the purpose of the applicant's placement in the home had been to provide social services, he could at any time have asked for the placement agreement to be terminated without the courts needing to be involved. In their submission, in so far as the applicant alleged a con flict of interests with his guardian, he could have relied on Article 123, paragraph 1, of the FC ( see § 50 above) and requested the guardianship authority to appoint an AD HOC REPRESENTATIVE , who could then have consented to a change of permanent residence.
166. The Government further contended that the applicant's close relatives had not availed themselves of the possibility open for some of them under Articles 113 and 115 of the FC of requesting the guardianship authority to replace his guardian or of challenging steps taken by the latter. They added that in the event of a refusal, his relatives could have appealed to a court, which would have considered the merits of the case and, if appropiate , appointed a new guardian, who would then have terminated the placement agreement. This, in the Government's submission, would have enabled them to challenge in substance the agreement between Ms R.P. and the Pastra social care home.
167. Lastly, the Government submitted that an action for restoration of legal capacity ( under Article 277 of the CCP - see § 51 above) constituted a remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 since, if a sufficient improvement in the applicant's health had been observed and he had been released from guardianship, he would have been free to leave the home "
Nun zur vergleichbaren, schier ausweglosen Situation in unserem Anlaßfall:
1. Die sogenannte "vollstationäre Unterbringung" in einer solchen Hascherlaufbewahrungsanstalt nach den 9 völlig verschiedenen landesrechtlichen Regelungen wird eben nicht als " DETENTION " angesehen von den Verfassungsrechtlern von FELIX AUSTRIA, sondern als der Ausdruck der allerhöchsten Stufe landesfürstlichen Gnadenerweises !!! Denn sonst müßte man ja wirklich auch hier denselben wirksamen Rechtsschutz einführen wie im strafrechtlichen Grundrechtsbeschwerdegesetz und im psychiatrischen Unterbringungsgesetz. Wie schon mehrfach ausgeführt, versagt hier auch kläglich der Rechtsschutz durch das Heimaufenthaltsgesetz, weil die Konditionen einer bescheidförmigen Heimeinweisung schlichtweg von allen völlig verleugnet werden !
2. Die Befreiung von den Fesseln einer völlig entarteten familienfremden "Sachwalterschaft" ist hierzulande schlichtweg überhaupt unmöglich gemacht ! Der Betroffene selbst hat zwar rein theoretisch immer die volle Parteistellung und kann jeden Tag einen neuen Antrag stellen auf Befreiung von diesen Fesseln, aber in den allermeisten Fällen werden die armseligen Hascherl von den Richtern überhaupt nicht ernst genommen und jeder Versuch von außen, selbige zu unterstützen durch Rechtsberatung und Verfahrensunterstützung wird von den argwöhnischen Richtern als unverzeihliches Sakrileg betrachtet und führt zur Bedrohung mit strafrechtlchen Konsequenzen für diese unerwünschten Unterstützer. Nächsten Angehörigen ist in diesen Dingen Parteistellung und Antragsrecht leider nach wie vor verwehrt durch die seinerzeitige Sabotagetätigkeit der sogenannten "Richtervereinigung" anläßlich des ministeriellen Begutachtungsverfahrens zum SWRÄG 2006. Siehe dazu die Erläuterungen zum § 278 ABGB idF 385 ME /XXII.GP
!http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385/imfname_056782.pdf
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385/index.shtml
http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/ME/ME_00385_41/imfname_060144.pdf
Seit mehr als nun schon 9 1/2 Jahren werden die Unterstützer des betroffenen WOLFGANG S. im Kreise herumgeschickt von den Richtern am hiesigen Bezirksgericht, Landesgericht und auch vom Obersten Gerichtshof. Diese Richter betreiben systematische Rechtsbeugung in der festen Überzeugung, daß es niemals jemandem gelingen wird, die Menschenrechtswidrigkeit dieser hinterhältigen & heimtückischen Manöver aufzudecken und zu beseitigen. Sie haben sich damit aber sicherlich verrechnet, es ist nur mehr eine Frage der Zeit, bis ein Urteil des EGMR in Straßburg sämtliche Dimensionen dieser großangelegten Rechtsbeugung offenbart und verurteilt !
9 1/2 JAHRE ENDLOSER RICHTERLICHER KREISVERKEHR : SPEEDILY DECIDED ?
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen