Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and
a people who mean to be their own governors,
must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular
information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.
-- James Madison
in German: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/egmr-klage.htm
Walter Keim, Email: email@example.com
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, den 28. June 2007
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
Complaint application no. 31583/07 against the rejection of the constitutional court in case 2 BvR 1033/07 (Appendix 1) on publication of income and sideline jobs of MPs
I apply for:
The judgement of German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in case Constitutional Complaint 2 BvR 1033/07 on Rejection of publication of income from sideline jobs of members of federal parliament and interim injunction to publish ("Verweigerung der Veröffentlichung der Nebenverdienste der Bundestagsabgeordneten durch den Bundestagspräsidenten vom 10.3.06 und Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Anordnung"):
According to § 93 b in connection with 93 a BVerfGG (Federal Constitutional Court Act) the decision is: The complaint is not accepted. ("gemäß § 93 b in Verbindung mit 93 a BVerfGG (..wird) einstimmig beschlossen: Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird (..) nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.")
- Appendix 1 -
§ 93a and 93b BVerfGG (Federal Constitutional Court Act) read:
"Article 93 a
(1) A constitutional complaint shall require acceptance.
(2) It shall be accepted
(a) in so far as it has fundamental constitutional significance,
(b) if this is indicated in order to enforce the rights referred to in Article 90 (1) above; this can also be the case if the complainant suffers especially grave disadvantage as a result of refusal to decide on the complaint.
Article 93 b
The chamber may refuse to accept the constitutional complaint or accept it prior to a decision in the case of Article 93c below. Otherwise the panel shall decide on acceptance.
Article 93 c
(1) If the conditions of Article 93 a (2) (b) above are fulfilled and if the constitutional issue determining the judgment of the complaint has already been decided upon by the Federal Constitutional Court, the chamber may allow the complaint if it is clearly justified. This decision is equal to a decision by the panel. A decision stating, with the effect of Article 31 (2) above, that a law is incompatible with the Basic Law or with other Federal law shall be reserved for the panel.
(2) Articles 94 (2)-(3) and 95 (1)-(2) below shall apply to the above procedure."
Detailed reason see German version: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/egmr-klage.htm
The treaty on Prevention of Corruption SEV-Nr. : 173 of 1999 of the Council of Europe was not ratified by Germany, although 43 of the 47 members did.
More then 90 states have ratified the UN-Convention against corruption. But the German Bundestag is up to now against ratification because bribery of MPs (§ 108e des Strafgesetzbuchs) would hva to be changed.
The Secretary of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis asked German parliamentarians in public: What do you have to hide? (Der Spiegel Nr. 21, page 38).
of the European Court for Human Rights puts Germany on notice (8.
Dec. 2006, AFP Agence France-Presse):
The president of the European Court for human rights (ECHR), Luzius Wildhaber, admonished Germany for the conversion of the Strasbourg judgements: Germany has to be more concerned with implementation of "the system of the human rights convention, said Wildhaber in an interview with press agency AFP. There is obviously ignorance and some knowledge gaps, also under German judges, stressed the 69-year old Swiss court president, who will leave the Strasburg Court next January because of age reasons.
The COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS of the Council of Europe has adopted "Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies":
I. ascertain, through constant review, in the light of case-law of the Court, that domestic remedies exist for anyone with an arguable complaint of a violation of the Convention, and that these remedies are effective, in that they can result in a decision on the merits of the complaint and adequate redress for any violation found;
II. review, following Court judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice, the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and, where necessary, set up effective remedies, in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the Court;
III. pay particular attention, in respect of aforementioned items I and II, to the existence of effective remedies in cases of an arguable complaint concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings;
The COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS of the Council of Europe has adopted Recommendation Rec(2004)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the verification of the compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Right:
I. I. ensure that there are appropriate and effective mechanisms for systematically verifying the compatibility of draft laws with the Convention in the light of the case-law of the Court;
II. ensure that there are such mechanisms for verifying, whenever necessary, the compatibility of existing laws and administrative practice, including as expressed in regulations, orders and circulars;
III. ensure the adaptation, as quickly as possible, of laws and administrative practice in order to prevent violations of the Convention;
EU tries to secure democracy and human rights by demanding this from new members. However Germany is a founding member and lacks e. g. the following which new members must have:
If Germany would seek membership today this would not be accepted. However Germany was a founding member and was never asked to comply with modern democracy and giving a guarantee of protecting human rights. Germany could veto if EU would pressure for strengthening human rights acceptance.
"....the recommendation of the Council of Europe (Recommendation No. R (94)12, Art. 2 c) see Appendix A) concerning judges applies for new members for EU:
»The authority taking the decision on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the government and the administration. In order to safeguard its independence, rules should ensure that, for instance, its members are selected by the judiciary and that the authority decides itself on its procedural rules«.
That is the case in France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Netherlands - not in Germany. Germany - if it was not already member would be a problematic candidate....." (Appendix IV: Die Entfesselung der dritten Gewalt Von Heribert Prantl)
[The assembly of the Federation of German Judges (Deutschen Richterbund DRB) asks to give the judiciary an independent position as the separation of powers and the constitution demands. Also the New Union of Judges (Neue Richtervereinigung) aks for the independence of judiciary from executive to realize separation of powers.This demand is more the 50 years old: The 40. gathering of German jurists 1953 has suggested to realize the separation of powers written down in the constitution (Appendix VII)]
In the 18. century German justice ministers hired and promoted judges. This is the case even today also the constitution has written down something else. The principle of official secrecy (Amtsgeheimnis) dates also back to the 18. century and is still valid in 8 of 16 states (Bundesländern). In court cases and elsewhere access to files is always difficult. The state and judges seem not to see why this should be granted.
Punishment and public prosecution of libel and defamation no longer done in most European states. The UK has since 1927 reduced punishment for defamation and only written "Libel" under special circumstances remains. Since 1997 only 1 to 5 convictions per year. The German statistics show 50.00 cases for 1927 for libel. I the year 2005 more than 180.000 cases occurred with a raising tendency. (Appendix V)
If a citizen says his opinion about judges and other authorities, he/she may be met with accusation of defamation to shut up critics. The dissident and civil rights fighter Helmut Palmer (which you know) is a example having been to prison many time because authorities felt defamed. In family cases I have often seen that critics were silence with police action taking away PC. Courts have tried to silence critics by trying to declare them insane (Appendix VI).
In 2006 a Freedom of Information Law was enacted in the German federation. This late change in culture followed the Recommendation No. 854 (1979) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However those in power have to get used to this new ideas.
But Article 1 (2) Basic Law (GG) says "inviolable and inalienable human rights (are) the basis of every community". Article 46 of the Convention of Human Rights is bindig "The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties." Therefore the human right of access to public documents can be made valid for Germany. This applies also for the information (i. e. exact income numbers) on sideline jobs not published yet.
Copy: Bundestagspräsident, alle Bundestagsabgeordneten, Bundespräsident, Bundeskanzlerin, campact, Deutscher Presserat, Deutsche Presse, TV Stationen, Kopien auch an 8 Bundesländer ohne Informationsfreiheitsgesetze.
Copy: MdB Otto, Laurischk, Kolb (FDP), Danckert (SPD), Wolfgang Götzer, Max Straubinger (CSU), Siegfried Kauder, Marco Wanderwitz, Friederich Merz (CDU)
The ECHR Application Form.
In Internet veröffentlicht:
|Organization||Name with Link||Translation|
|Council of Europe, 1950||European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (BGBl. 1952 Teil II S. 685)||(German)|
|Parliamentary Assembly, 1979||Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 854 (1979) on access by the public to government records and freedom of information: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta79/erec854.htm|
|Council of Europe, 1981||"Recommendation No. R (81) 19" on the access to information held by public authorities: http://www.medialaw.ru/laws/other_laws/european/e-rec81-19.htm|
|Parliamentary Assembly, 1986||Recommendation 1037 (1986). On Data Protection and Freedom of Information: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta86/EREC1037.htm|
|EU, 1997 (Amsterdam)||Treaty establishing the European Community (signed in Rome on 25 March 1957), consolidated version: Article 255 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/livre2_c.html||German|
|Council of Europe, 2002||Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on access to official documents: http://cm.coe.int/stat/E/Public/2002/adopted_texts/recommendations/2002r2.htm||German|
|European Court for Human Rights, 2006||Rechtssache Sdrueni Jihoceské Matky gegen Tschechische Republik, Antrag Nr. 19101/03 vom 10. Juli 2006: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/9/article1||German|
|Council of Europe, 2006||Binding Convention. CDDH: Project 2004/DG2/74 Guaranteeing the right of the public to have access to official documents: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/project_2004dg274.htm|
|Council of Europe, 2008||Council of Europe Convention on the Access to Official Documents (as adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 November 2008 at the 1042bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)|
|European Court for Human Rights, 14. April 2009||ECHR Application no. 37374/05 by TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT against Hungary: ( admissible 2008)||German|
|Organisation||Name with Link||Translation|
|General Assembly, 10.12. 1948||Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19: ...Freedom to seek information"||German|
|United Nations, 1966||International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (BGBl. 1973 II S. 1534) Article 19 (2) Freedom to seek information"||German|
|Europe UNECE, 1998||United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Environmental Matters: The Aarhus Convention: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/acig.htm||German|
|COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 1998||E/CN.4/1998/40, 28 January 1998: Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Abid Hussain, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/26: III A||Verstößt Deutschland gegen UN-Menschenrechte?|
|COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2000||E/CN.4/2000/63, 18 January 2000: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/36: III B|
|UN Special Rapporteur, 2004||JOINT DECLARATION by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2005/2/article1 "The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right"|
[Back to page on Freedom of Information] [Human Right Violations in Germany] [Law on Legal Advice] [Petitions] [Back to Homepage]
Seperation of powers:
Maps of Access to Information.