NICHTERSCHÖPFUNG des INNERSTAATLICHEN INSTANZENZUGS ?
"A. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ( §§ 97 - 100 im englischen Urteilstext)
97. The Grand Chamber observes that the Government maintained before it the objection they raised before the Chamber (V) alleging failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaint under Article 5 § 1.
98. The objection was based on the following arguments:
FIRSTLY, the applicant could at any time have applied personally to a court for restoration of his legal capacity, under article 277 of the CCP and release from guardianship would have allowed him to leave the home of his own accord.
SECONDLY, his close relatives had not availed themselves of the possibility open to some of them, under articles 113 and 115 of the FC, of asking the guardianship authority to replace his guardian. According to the government, in the event of a refusal the applicant's relatives could have applied to a court, which would have considered the merits of the request and, if appropiate, appointed a new guardian , who would then have been able to terminate the placement agreement. The Government also submitted in substance that the applicant's close relatives could have challenged the contract signed between the guardiian R.P. and the Pastra social care home.
LASTLY, they indicated that the applicant himself could have requested the guardianship authority to appoint an AD HOC REPRESENTATIVE on account of his alleged conflict of interests with his guardian, with a view to requesting to leave the institution and establish his home elsewhere (Article 123, § 1, of the FC)
99. The Grand Chamber observes that in its admissibility decision of 29 June 2010 the Chamber (V) found that this objection raised questions that were closely linked to those arising in relation to the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 and therefore joined the objection to its examination of the merits under that provision.
100. In addition, finding that the question whether there had been a "deprivation of liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 in the present case was closely linked to the merits of the complaint under this provision, the Chamber likewise joines that issue to its examination of the merits. The Grand Chamber sees no reason to call into question the Chamber's findings on these issues. "
Soweit also der Einwand der beklagten bulgarischen Regierung noch vor der Zulässigkeitsverhandlung und da finden wir schon für unseren konkreten Anlaßfall hochwertiges Argumentationsmaterial ! Insbesondere bedeutsam ist der Hinweis darauf, daß die nächsten Angehörigen des Betroffenen den " HEIMVERTRAG " anfechten hätten können, der von der damaligen Sachwalterin R. P. abgeschlossen worden war mit dem staatlichen Behindertenheim in Rila ! Rusi STANEV hat jedoch mehrfach glaubwürdig behauptet, von der Existenz eines solchen "Heimvertrages" nie informiert worden zu sein ! Das bringt uns wieder in unsere aktuelle Situation hier in Salzburg:
Die "Lebenshilfe Salzburg" ist ja mittlerweile massiv an die Öffentlichkeit getreten mit diversen Forderungen sowohl auf der eigenen Internet - Homepage
http://www.lebenshilfe-salzburg.at/nc/news-einzelansicht/article/die-finanziellen-probleme-des-landes-duerfen-sich-nicht-auf-die-menschenrechte-von-menschen-mit-beei/60.html
als auch in diversen Printmedien wie "Stadtblatt Salzburg " und ganz frisch heute auch im "Rupertusblatt" und aus all diesen Meldungen ist klar ersichtlich, in welch gigantischen Problemen der absolute "Marktführer" bei der großindustriellen Entsorgung schwerbehinderter und damit die Normalwelt störender Mitmenschen steckt...............
Und wiederum wird der Problematik "Heimvertrag" kein einziges Sterbenswörtchen gewidmet, nach wie vor wird dieses zentrale Problem unter den Tisch gekehrt ! Daß WOLFGANG S. nach über 9 1/2 Jahren zwangsweiser "Unterbringung" noch immer keinen konsensualen Heimvertrag bekommt, das sagt schon alles über das Totalversagen sämtlicher staatlicher Stellen, die sich um die Grundrechte und auch die Persönlichkeitsrechte und Kontraktrechte von schwerbehinderten Personen hierzulande kümmern sollten .
"A. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ( §§ 97 - 100 im englischen Urteilstext)
97. The Grand Chamber observes that the Government maintained before it the objection they raised before the Chamber (V) alleging failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaint under Article 5 § 1.
98. The objection was based on the following arguments:
FIRSTLY, the applicant could at any time have applied personally to a court for restoration of his legal capacity, under article 277 of the CCP and release from guardianship would have allowed him to leave the home of his own accord.
SECONDLY, his close relatives had not availed themselves of the possibility open to some of them, under articles 113 and 115 of the FC, of asking the guardianship authority to replace his guardian. According to the government, in the event of a refusal the applicant's relatives could have applied to a court, which would have considered the merits of the request and, if appropiate, appointed a new guardian , who would then have been able to terminate the placement agreement. The Government also submitted in substance that the applicant's close relatives could have challenged the contract signed between the guardiian R.P. and the Pastra social care home.
LASTLY, they indicated that the applicant himself could have requested the guardianship authority to appoint an AD HOC REPRESENTATIVE on account of his alleged conflict of interests with his guardian, with a view to requesting to leave the institution and establish his home elsewhere (Article 123, § 1, of the FC)
99. The Grand Chamber observes that in its admissibility decision of 29 June 2010 the Chamber (V) found that this objection raised questions that were closely linked to those arising in relation to the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 and therefore joined the objection to its examination of the merits under that provision.
100. In addition, finding that the question whether there had been a "deprivation of liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 in the present case was closely linked to the merits of the complaint under this provision, the Chamber likewise joines that issue to its examination of the merits. The Grand Chamber sees no reason to call into question the Chamber's findings on these issues. "
Soweit also der Einwand der beklagten bulgarischen Regierung noch vor der Zulässigkeitsverhandlung und da finden wir schon für unseren konkreten Anlaßfall hochwertiges Argumentationsmaterial ! Insbesondere bedeutsam ist der Hinweis darauf, daß die nächsten Angehörigen des Betroffenen den " HEIMVERTRAG " anfechten hätten können, der von der damaligen Sachwalterin R. P. abgeschlossen worden war mit dem staatlichen Behindertenheim in Rila ! Rusi STANEV hat jedoch mehrfach glaubwürdig behauptet, von der Existenz eines solchen "Heimvertrages" nie informiert worden zu sein ! Das bringt uns wieder in unsere aktuelle Situation hier in Salzburg:
Die "Lebenshilfe Salzburg" ist ja mittlerweile massiv an die Öffentlichkeit getreten mit diversen Forderungen sowohl auf der eigenen Internet - Homepage
http://www.lebenshilfe-salzburg.at/nc/news-einzelansicht/article/die-finanziellen-probleme-des-landes-duerfen-sich-nicht-auf-die-menschenrechte-von-menschen-mit-beei/60.html
als auch in diversen Printmedien wie "Stadtblatt Salzburg " und ganz frisch heute auch im "Rupertusblatt" und aus all diesen Meldungen ist klar ersichtlich, in welch gigantischen Problemen der absolute "Marktführer" bei der großindustriellen Entsorgung schwerbehinderter und damit die Normalwelt störender Mitmenschen steckt...............
Und wiederum wird der Problematik "Heimvertrag" kein einziges Sterbenswörtchen gewidmet, nach wie vor wird dieses zentrale Problem unter den Tisch gekehrt ! Daß WOLFGANG S. nach über 9 1/2 Jahren zwangsweiser "Unterbringung" noch immer keinen konsensualen Heimvertrag bekommt, das sagt schon alles über das Totalversagen sämtlicher staatlicher Stellen, die sich um die Grundrechte und auch die Persönlichkeitsrechte und Kontraktrechte von schwerbehinderten Personen hierzulande kümmern sollten .
WELCHE FAULEN AUSREDEN WIRD FELIX AUSTRIA IN STRASSBURG VORBRINGEN ?
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen