"(b) THE (BULGARIAN) GOVERNMENT
108. In their written observations before the Chamber (V), the Government ACCEPTED that the circumstances of the case amounted to a "deprivation of liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. However, at the hearing and in the proceedings before the GRAND Chamber, they contended that Article 5 was not applicable. They observed in that connection that the applicant had not been compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric insttution by the public authorities under the Public Health Act, but had been housed in a social care home at his guardian's request on the basis of a civil - law agreement and in accordance with the rules on social assistance. Thus, persons in need of assistance, including those with mental disorders, could request various social and medical services, either directly or through their representatives, under the Social Assistance Act 1998 (see §§ 57 - 60 above). Homes for adults with mental disorders offered a wide range of services of this kind and placement in such institutions could not be seen as deprivation of liberty.
109. As to the particular circumstances of the case, the Government emphasised that the applicant had never expressly and consciously objected to his placement in the home, and it could not therefore concluded that the measure had been involuntary. Furthermore, he had been free to leave the home at any time.
110. In addition, the applicant had been encouraged to work in the village restaurant to the best of his abilities and had been granted leave of absence on three occasions. The reason why he had twice returned from Ruse before the end of his authorised period of leave (see § 27 above), was his lack of accomodation. The government further submitted that the applicant had never been brought back to the home by the police. They acknowledged that in September 2006 the director had been obliged to ask the police to search for him because he had not come back (see § 28 above). However, it was clear from the case of DODOV v. Bulgaria (no. 59.548/00, 17 January 2008) That the State had a positive obligation to take care of people housed in social care homes. In the Government's submission, the steps taken by the director had formed part of this duty of protection.
111. The Government further observed that the applicant had lacked legal capacity and had not had the benefit of a supportive family environment, accomodation or sufficient resources to lead an independent life . Referring in that connection to the judgements in H.M. v.Switzerland (cited above) and NIELSEN v. Denmark (28 November 1988, Series A no.144) , they submitted that the applicant's placement in the home was simply a protective measure taken in his interests alone and constituted an appropriate response to a social and medical emergency, such a response could not be viewed as involuntary. "
In vergleichbarer Weise argumentiert nun schon seit fast 10 Jahren die gesamte geschlossene Seilschaft, die den WOLFGANG in Gefangenschaft & Geiselhaft hält: man habe ihn ja damals förmlich retten müssen vor den gewalttätigen Eltern und seine Sachwalterin habe doch einen Antrag gestellt auf Heimunterbringung beim Land Salzburg und dann sei mit dem erfolgten Bescheid des Landes die konkrete Zuweisung = Einweisung auf diesen Heimplatz erfolgt und im Übrigen gäbe es sowieso nichts Schöneres für einen solchen Schwerbehinderten als wie das absolut sorgenfreie Leben bei der unantastbaren "Heiligen Kuh" mit dem schönen Namen "Lebenshilfe".....................
Wahr ist jedoch, daß ab dem besagten 17.Oktober 2003 alles total schief gelaufen ist: an die gewaltsame Entführung fügte sich nahtlos an eine zwar bestens getarnte, aber umso erbärmlichere Sklavenhalterei, permanente tagtägliche Nötigung, konsenslose psychopharmakologische Misshandlung und noch viel mehr. Dazu paßt am besten, was Klaus DÖRNER zu sagen hat über dieses heimtückische System der Paralysierung völlig wehrloser Mitmenschen. Wie gut, daß die Universität Innsbruck das in die bidok gestellt hat !
http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/doerner-schutzhaft.html
WIDER DIE SCHUTZHAFT DER " NÄCHSTENLIEBE " !
108. In their written observations before the Chamber (V), the Government ACCEPTED that the circumstances of the case amounted to a "deprivation of liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. However, at the hearing and in the proceedings before the GRAND Chamber, they contended that Article 5 was not applicable. They observed in that connection that the applicant had not been compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric insttution by the public authorities under the Public Health Act, but had been housed in a social care home at his guardian's request on the basis of a civil - law agreement and in accordance with the rules on social assistance. Thus, persons in need of assistance, including those with mental disorders, could request various social and medical services, either directly or through their representatives, under the Social Assistance Act 1998 (see §§ 57 - 60 above). Homes for adults with mental disorders offered a wide range of services of this kind and placement in such institutions could not be seen as deprivation of liberty.
109. As to the particular circumstances of the case, the Government emphasised that the applicant had never expressly and consciously objected to his placement in the home, and it could not therefore concluded that the measure had been involuntary. Furthermore, he had been free to leave the home at any time.
110. In addition, the applicant had been encouraged to work in the village restaurant to the best of his abilities and had been granted leave of absence on three occasions. The reason why he had twice returned from Ruse before the end of his authorised period of leave (see § 27 above), was his lack of accomodation. The government further submitted that the applicant had never been brought back to the home by the police. They acknowledged that in September 2006 the director had been obliged to ask the police to search for him because he had not come back (see § 28 above). However, it was clear from the case of DODOV v. Bulgaria (no. 59.548/00, 17 January 2008) That the State had a positive obligation to take care of people housed in social care homes. In the Government's submission, the steps taken by the director had formed part of this duty of protection.
111. The Government further observed that the applicant had lacked legal capacity and had not had the benefit of a supportive family environment, accomodation or sufficient resources to lead an independent life . Referring in that connection to the judgements in H.M. v.Switzerland (cited above) and NIELSEN v. Denmark (28 November 1988, Series A no.144) , they submitted that the applicant's placement in the home was simply a protective measure taken in his interests alone and constituted an appropriate response to a social and medical emergency, such a response could not be viewed as involuntary. "
In vergleichbarer Weise argumentiert nun schon seit fast 10 Jahren die gesamte geschlossene Seilschaft, die den WOLFGANG in Gefangenschaft & Geiselhaft hält: man habe ihn ja damals förmlich retten müssen vor den gewalttätigen Eltern und seine Sachwalterin habe doch einen Antrag gestellt auf Heimunterbringung beim Land Salzburg und dann sei mit dem erfolgten Bescheid des Landes die konkrete Zuweisung = Einweisung auf diesen Heimplatz erfolgt und im Übrigen gäbe es sowieso nichts Schöneres für einen solchen Schwerbehinderten als wie das absolut sorgenfreie Leben bei der unantastbaren "Heiligen Kuh" mit dem schönen Namen "Lebenshilfe".....................
Wahr ist jedoch, daß ab dem besagten 17.Oktober 2003 alles total schief gelaufen ist: an die gewaltsame Entführung fügte sich nahtlos an eine zwar bestens getarnte, aber umso erbärmlichere Sklavenhalterei, permanente tagtägliche Nötigung, konsenslose psychopharmakologische Misshandlung und noch viel mehr. Dazu paßt am besten, was Klaus DÖRNER zu sagen hat über dieses heimtückische System der Paralysierung völlig wehrloser Mitmenschen. Wie gut, daß die Universität Innsbruck das in die bidok gestellt hat !
http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/doerner-schutzhaft.html
WIDER DIE SCHUTZHAFT DER " NÄCHSTENLIEBE " !
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen