"(b) THE BULGARIAN GOVERNMENT §§ 136 - 138
136. The Government submitted that the applicant's placement in the home COMPLIED with DOMESTIC LAW as the guardian had signed an agreement wereby the applicant was to receive social services in his own interests. She had therefore acted in accordance with her responsibilities and had dis charged her duty to protect the person under partial guardianship.
137. Bearing in mind that the sole purpose of the placement had been to provide the applicant with social services under the Social Assistance Act and not to administer compulsory medical treatment, the Government submitted that this measure was not governed by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. In that connection, the authorities had taken into account his financial and family situation, that is to say, his lack of resources and the absence of close relatives able to assist him on a day - to - day basis.
138. The Government noted at the same time that the applicant could in any event be regarded as a "PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e). The medical assessment carried out during the proceedings for his legal incapacitation in 2000 showed clearly that he was suffering from mental disorders and that it was therefore legitimate for the autorities to place him in an institution for people with similar problems. Lastly, relying on the ASHINGDANE judgement (cited above, § 44), the Government submitted that there was an adequate link between the reason given for the placement, namely the applicant's state of health, and the institution in which he had been placed. Accordingly, they contended that the measure in issue had not been in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e)."
Wie nun würde die RES PUBLICA AUSTRIACA die gesamte behördliche Vorgangsweise im Beschwerdefall WOLFGANG in Straßburg verteidigen und verharmlosen ? Immerhin ist die hinterhältige & und überaus heimtückische Entführung am 17.10.2003 letztendlich der Sicherheitsbehörde Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg - Umgebung zuzurechnen nach dem SPG (Sicherheitspolizeigesetz) und das ist schon eindeutig Bundesrecht in unmittelbarer und direkter Verantwortung der Bundesregierung.
Der sozialbehördliche Aspekt jedoch ist vorwiegend oder sogar ausschließlich von der Landesregierung Salzburg zu verantworten, weil sämtliche Aspekte einer Heimunterbringung nach der Bundesverfassung Kompetenz des jeweiligen Bundeslandes sind. Wird nun in Straßburg auch diese Salzburger Landesregierung unmittelbar zur Verantwortung gezogen oder muß auch diesen Aspekt der Bund mitschultern ? Darauf weiß ich jetzt gar keine gesicherte Antwort, aber das wird sich ja bald klären !
BUND und LAND HAFTEN GEMEINSAM IM BESCHWERDEFALL WOLFGANG !
136. The Government submitted that the applicant's placement in the home COMPLIED with DOMESTIC LAW as the guardian had signed an agreement wereby the applicant was to receive social services in his own interests. She had therefore acted in accordance with her responsibilities and had dis charged her duty to protect the person under partial guardianship.
137. Bearing in mind that the sole purpose of the placement had been to provide the applicant with social services under the Social Assistance Act and not to administer compulsory medical treatment, the Government submitted that this measure was not governed by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. In that connection, the authorities had taken into account his financial and family situation, that is to say, his lack of resources and the absence of close relatives able to assist him on a day - to - day basis.
138. The Government noted at the same time that the applicant could in any event be regarded as a "PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e). The medical assessment carried out during the proceedings for his legal incapacitation in 2000 showed clearly that he was suffering from mental disorders and that it was therefore legitimate for the autorities to place him in an institution for people with similar problems. Lastly, relying on the ASHINGDANE judgement (cited above, § 44), the Government submitted that there was an adequate link between the reason given for the placement, namely the applicant's state of health, and the institution in which he had been placed. Accordingly, they contended that the measure in issue had not been in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e)."
Wie nun würde die RES PUBLICA AUSTRIACA die gesamte behördliche Vorgangsweise im Beschwerdefall WOLFGANG in Straßburg verteidigen und verharmlosen ? Immerhin ist die hinterhältige & und überaus heimtückische Entführung am 17.10.2003 letztendlich der Sicherheitsbehörde Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg - Umgebung zuzurechnen nach dem SPG (Sicherheitspolizeigesetz) und das ist schon eindeutig Bundesrecht in unmittelbarer und direkter Verantwortung der Bundesregierung.
Der sozialbehördliche Aspekt jedoch ist vorwiegend oder sogar ausschließlich von der Landesregierung Salzburg zu verantworten, weil sämtliche Aspekte einer Heimunterbringung nach der Bundesverfassung Kompetenz des jeweiligen Bundeslandes sind. Wird nun in Straßburg auch diese Salzburger Landesregierung unmittelbar zur Verantwortung gezogen oder muß auch diesen Aspekt der Bund mitschultern ? Darauf weiß ich jetzt gar keine gesicherte Antwort, aber das wird sich ja bald klären !
BUND und LAND HAFTEN GEMEINSAM IM BESCHWERDEFALL WOLFGANG !
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen