"C. WHETHER the APPLICANT'S PLACEMENT in the Pastra social care home WAS COMPATIBLE with Article 5 § 1 (§§ 133 - 160)
1. THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS ( §§ 133 - 142)
(a) THE APPLICANT ( §§ 133 - 135)
133. The applicant submitted that since he had NOT CONSENTED to his placement in the Pastra social care home and had NOT SIGNED the agreement drawn up between his guardian and the home, the AGREEMENT WAS IN BREACH of the Persons and Family Act. He added that he had not been informed of the agreement' s existence at the time of his placement and that he had remained unaware of it for a long time afterwards. Nor had he had any opportunity to challenge this step taken by his guardian. Although the guardian had been required by Article 126 of the Family Code to report on her activities to the guardianship authority ( the mayor), the latter was not empowered to take any action against her. Furthermore, no report had ever been drawn up in respect of the applicant, and his guardians had never been called to account for that shortcoming.
134. The applicant further argued that his placement in a home for people with mental disorders did not fall within any of the grounds on which deprivation of liberty could be justified for the purposes of Article 5. The measure in question had not been justified by the need to ensure public safety or by the inability of the person concerned to cope outside the institution. In support of that contention, the applicant argues that the director of the home had deemed him capable of integrating into the community and that attempts had been made to bring him closer to his family, allbeit to no avail. Accordingly, the authorities had based their decision to place him in the home on the simple fact that his family were not prepared to take care of him and he needed social assistance. They had not examined whether the necessary assistance could be provided through alternative measures that were less restrictive of his personal liberty. Such measures were , moreover, quite conceivable since Bulgarian legislation made provision for a wide range of social services, such as Personal Assistance, social rehabilitation centres and special allowances and pensions. The authorities had thus failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's social needs and his right to liberty. It would be arbitrary, and contrary to the purpose of Article 5, for detention to be based on purely social considerations.
135. Should the Court take the view that the placement fell within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) by which persons of UNSOUND MIND could be deprived of their liberty, the applicant submitted that the national authorities had not satisfied the requirements of that provision. In the absence of a recent psychiatric assessment, it was clear that his placement in the home had not pursued the aim of providing him with medical treatment and had been based solely on medical documents produced in the context of the proceedings for his legal incapacitation. The documents had been issued approximately a year and a half beforehand and had not strictly concerned his placement in an institution for people with mental disorders. Relying on VARBANOV v. Bulgaria (no. 31.365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000 - X), the applicant stated that he had been placed in the Pastra social care home without having been undergone any assessment of his mental health at that time."
Und nun die erschütternden Entsprechungen in unserem Anlaßfall : bis heute (Mittwoch 15.Mai 2013) gibt es für die Unterbringung des WOLFGANG im Behindertenheim der "Lebenshilfe Salzburg" KEINEN HEIMVERTRAG, somit keinerlei "civil - law - agreement", sondern nur einen verwaltungsbehördlichen BESCHEID der Landesregierung Salzburg auf "ZUWEISUNG" eines konkreten Heimplatzes und auf vorerst unbefristete ÜBERNAHME der KOSTEN aus dem Budget des Landes für Zwecke der Behindertenhilfe.
Ob dieser Bescheid die Antwort war auf einen entsprechenden ANTRAG der damals völlig illegal als "Sachwalterin" auftretenden Frau Katharina SCHABAUER ( angestellte Mitarbeiterin des Heimträgers !) oder "von Amts wegen" erstellt worden war, das wissen wir bis heute nicht, weil uns in größter Panik der zuständigen Stellen jedwede Information diesbezüglich verwehrt wird nach wie vor !!! Es gibt also einen haarsträubend rechtswidrigen Zustand seit diesem 17.Oktober 2003 und eigenartigerweise störte das bislang weder sämtliche Pflegschaftsrichter am Bezirkgsgericht und auch Landesgericht Salzburg noch den Obersten Gerichtshof, der schon mehrfach mit dieser causa befaßt war, allerdings nur um die Nase zu rümpfen und alles wegen "UNZULÄSSIGKEIT" zurückzuschicken !!!
1. THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS ( §§ 133 - 142)
(a) THE APPLICANT ( §§ 133 - 135)
133. The applicant submitted that since he had NOT CONSENTED to his placement in the Pastra social care home and had NOT SIGNED the agreement drawn up between his guardian and the home, the AGREEMENT WAS IN BREACH of the Persons and Family Act. He added that he had not been informed of the agreement' s existence at the time of his placement and that he had remained unaware of it for a long time afterwards. Nor had he had any opportunity to challenge this step taken by his guardian. Although the guardian had been required by Article 126 of the Family Code to report on her activities to the guardianship authority ( the mayor), the latter was not empowered to take any action against her. Furthermore, no report had ever been drawn up in respect of the applicant, and his guardians had never been called to account for that shortcoming.
134. The applicant further argued that his placement in a home for people with mental disorders did not fall within any of the grounds on which deprivation of liberty could be justified for the purposes of Article 5. The measure in question had not been justified by the need to ensure public safety or by the inability of the person concerned to cope outside the institution. In support of that contention, the applicant argues that the director of the home had deemed him capable of integrating into the community and that attempts had been made to bring him closer to his family, allbeit to no avail. Accordingly, the authorities had based their decision to place him in the home on the simple fact that his family were not prepared to take care of him and he needed social assistance. They had not examined whether the necessary assistance could be provided through alternative measures that were less restrictive of his personal liberty. Such measures were , moreover, quite conceivable since Bulgarian legislation made provision for a wide range of social services, such as Personal Assistance, social rehabilitation centres and special allowances and pensions. The authorities had thus failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant's social needs and his right to liberty. It would be arbitrary, and contrary to the purpose of Article 5, for detention to be based on purely social considerations.
135. Should the Court take the view that the placement fell within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) by which persons of UNSOUND MIND could be deprived of their liberty, the applicant submitted that the national authorities had not satisfied the requirements of that provision. In the absence of a recent psychiatric assessment, it was clear that his placement in the home had not pursued the aim of providing him with medical treatment and had been based solely on medical documents produced in the context of the proceedings for his legal incapacitation. The documents had been issued approximately a year and a half beforehand and had not strictly concerned his placement in an institution for people with mental disorders. Relying on VARBANOV v. Bulgaria (no. 31.365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000 - X), the applicant stated that he had been placed in the Pastra social care home without having been undergone any assessment of his mental health at that time."
Und nun die erschütternden Entsprechungen in unserem Anlaßfall : bis heute (Mittwoch 15.Mai 2013) gibt es für die Unterbringung des WOLFGANG im Behindertenheim der "Lebenshilfe Salzburg" KEINEN HEIMVERTRAG, somit keinerlei "civil - law - agreement", sondern nur einen verwaltungsbehördlichen BESCHEID der Landesregierung Salzburg auf "ZUWEISUNG" eines konkreten Heimplatzes und auf vorerst unbefristete ÜBERNAHME der KOSTEN aus dem Budget des Landes für Zwecke der Behindertenhilfe.
Ob dieser Bescheid die Antwort war auf einen entsprechenden ANTRAG der damals völlig illegal als "Sachwalterin" auftretenden Frau Katharina SCHABAUER ( angestellte Mitarbeiterin des Heimträgers !) oder "von Amts wegen" erstellt worden war, das wissen wir bis heute nicht, weil uns in größter Panik der zuständigen Stellen jedwede Information diesbezüglich verwehrt wird nach wie vor !!! Es gibt also einen haarsträubend rechtswidrigen Zustand seit diesem 17.Oktober 2003 und eigenartigerweise störte das bislang weder sämtliche Pflegschaftsrichter am Bezirkgsgericht und auch Landesgericht Salzburg noch den Obersten Gerichtshof, der schon mehrfach mit dieser causa befaßt war, allerdings nur um die Nase zu rümpfen und alles wegen "UNZULÄSSIGKEIT" zurückzuschicken !!!
NO CIVIL LAW AGREEMENT IN THE CASE OF WOLFGANG !
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen