Petition Violations of Human Rights in Germany

auf Deutsch

Walter Keim, Email: walter.keim@gmail.com
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, den 21. December 2003 [added 18 May 2005]

Committee of Petitions
Deutschen Bundestages
Platz der Republik 1
D-11011 Berlin

Petition Violations of Human Rights in Germany: Invitation of the Human Rights Commissioner of the CoE to Germany

Sir,

today is the second anniversary of my unanswered Petition 1-14-06-298-042380 about Freedom of Information in Germany. Therefore I write a petition on additional violations of human rights.

The governments of Switzerland: http://www.ofj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/themen/staat_und_buerger/gesetzgebung/oeffentlichkeitsprinzip.html, Serbia and Montenegro have sent draft FOI laws to parliament. Germany (in 12 of 16 lander) and Luxembourg are now competing to be the last in Europe regarding Freedom of Information.

Germany is the only OECD country, the only industrialized country and the only civilized country without freedom of Information, including access to public documents.

Here are additional violations of human rights:

The United Nations (UN) have 1948 given the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Afterwards many international conventions were signed to secure human rights. Germany has among other signed the following conventions:

The European Union guarantees Human Rights according to Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Violations of the ECHRFF can be reported to the European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee of the UN is responsible for complaints about the ICCPR.

Human rights in question are:

Freedom of opinion is found in Article 10 of the ECHRFF,
freedom of association in Article 11 of the ECHRFF,
right to fair trial in Article 6 of the ECHRFF and
freedom of information in Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR.

The following cases about violation of human rights are known to me:

In complaint No. 40901/02 to the European Court of Human Rights ¹of 13. November 2002 violations of freedom of opinion have been filed. This case is because a integration helper violated ² the law on legal advice ¹⁶ , because he supported Jewish immigrants for free. Germany is the only country in the world where it is forbidden to altruistically give free legal advice.
In case BARTHOLD v. GERMANY and STAMBUK v. GERMANY freedom of opinion was violated.
In case Vogt vs. Germany ( - 7/1994/454/535 - EuGRZ 1995, 590 - ) ³, Germany was condemned because of violations of freedom of opinion and freedom of association by the European Court of Human Rights. But the German courts seem not to respect this judgment ⁴ and try to continue as before.
Violation of Article 6 of the ECHRFF ¹⁴ : Deumeland v. Germany, BOCK v. GERMANY , PAMMEL v. GERMANY , PROBSTMEIER v. GERMANY , KÖNIG v. GERMANY , ELSHOLZ v. GERMANY , SOMMERFELD v. GERMANY , KLEIN v. GERMANY , MIANOWICZ v. GERMANY , METZGER v. GERMANY , H.T. v. GERMANY , HOFFMANN v. GERMANY , P.S. v. GERMANY , JANSSEN v. GERMANY , KIND v. Germany, BECKER v. GERMANY , BÖHMER v. GERMANY, THIEME v. GERMANY , HASSE-ANGER v. GERMANY , NIEDERBOSTER v. GERMANY, VAN KUCK v. GERMANY, HERBOLZHEIMER v. GERMANY.
Violation of the human right of freedom of information (including access to public documents) has been filed to the Human Rights Committee of the UN ⁶. In its report on ICCPR: CCPR/C/DEU/2002/5 of 4 December 2002 Germany claims in point 240 to comply with ICCPR Article 19 (2). But this is wrong because access to public documents is missing. Will the UN find out?
Answers to petition complaints never discussed human rights questions. Therefore access to documents was asked for, to study the communication between parliament and ministries. Access was refused:
- Petition Freedom of Information 21. Dec. 2001 to Bundestag: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_ifg.htm#einsicht,
- Petition Freedom of Information 20. Dec. 2001 to Landtag Baden-Württemberg: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_bw.htm#einsicht
- Petition Patients Rights 25. Oct. 2001 to Bundestag: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition4.htm#einsicht and
- Petition Patients Rights 25. Oct. 2001 to Landtag Baden-Württemberg: The committee of petitions rejects access. The Ministry of Social Affairs rejects as well.
The German Constitutional Court often does not give reasons e. g. in case 1 BvR 1057/02 ⁷ about Freedom of Information ⁸and violates Article 6 of the ECHRFF ⁹ . The same problem exists for Petitions ¹⁰, there is no right to a fair answer (1 BvR 1553/90) ¹¹. Here is an investigation who is responsible for the lack of freedom of information ¹⁵ in Germany.
Access to information is limited for patient files. A violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR. Who is responsible that patient rights are insufficient in Germany? ¹²
Watchdog documents violations of Human Rights.
The highest Court in the German land Rhineland-Palatinate LG Mainz (1 QS 25/98 ) ¹³ stated that the court can not give access to documents (as human rights would demand), because it is the parliament, which would have to give this right. Germany violates Article 46 of the European Convention of Human Rights to obey judgments.

[The forced membership in the German lawyers bar (Rechtsanwaltskammer) violates Article 20 (2) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights ("No one may be compelled to belong to an association."). Lawyers who are critical to the German legal system can be fired from the bar with the help of a monopoly dating back to a law on legal advice from 1935, which means a Berufsverbot. The German bar (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer) is the secessor (see § 233 BRAO), of the Reichs-bar (Reichs-Rechtsanwaltskammerder) from 18. March 1933 and constituted (Reich-Rechtsanwaltsordnung) on 13. December 1935. The lawyers bar in Cologne tries (See Krumbiegel Scandal) to fire a lawyer, who promotes Human Rights and his clients interests in clear words. Many citizens protest: Solidarity with RA Claus Plantiko: (click and add line shift) Letter to lawyers bar (Rechtsanwaltskammer). Here is an intervention.

Germany is the only country in Europe, which reserved the right not to comply with CoE Recommendation (85) 13 of appointing an independent Ombudsman. The ombudsman was recommended the general competence, to the human rights matters under his scrutiny and, if not incompatible with national legislation, to initiate investigations and to give opinions when questions of human rights are involved.
The German Institute of Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte) was founded on the basis of suggestions of the UN (UN resolution 48/134 of 20. December 1993) and CoE Recommendation No. R (97) 14. The first director Percy MacLean (now again judge at the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin) had to resign, because he monitored human rights in Germany (how UN wished). The opponents favoured to monitor international developments. (See his article: Das Deutsche Institut für Menschenrechte - Vision und Wirklichkeit: Wie soll es nach dem erzwungenen Rücktritt des ersten Direktors weitergehen? Vision and reality: How to proceed?). Especially steering members Mrs. Dr. Hanna-Beate Schöpp-Schilling and Mrs. Barbara Unmüßig opposed to monitor human rights in Germany. Access to these documents about this has been denied.
Germany's Constitutional Court decreed that European Human Rights' Court judgments were not binding in German domestic courts: 2 BvR 1481/04. Germany violates Article 46 of the European Convention of Human Rights to obey judgments.
OSCE is committed to the human right of access to public documents. Will OSCE observe this violation of human rights in Germany?

EUCARS ( European Corruption Analysis and Reduction Service ), institut voigt ¹⁹ : Peter Briody : Human Rights Violations in Germany. Letter to EU Commission: Violation of the Treaty of European Union Common Provisions Art 6-2 by the Federal Republic of Germany. Complaint to UN.
The German Crimanal Code punishes insult in section 185 and defamation in section 187 which is contrary to international standards suggesting civil code e. g. JOINT DECLARATION 2002 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. Details are worked out at the Regional Conference on Defamation and Freedom of Expression, Strasbourg, 17-18 October 2002.]

In this report to UN on ICCPR: CCPR/C/DEU/2002/5 of 4 December 2002 German government writes in point 3 of the preliminary remarks:

Article 1 para 1 of the Basic Law reads as follows: "The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." This principle follows from Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Article 1 para 2 of the Basic Law, "the German people … acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world".

Those who write this know about Article 1 para 3 says: (but who bites the hand which feeds him?)

The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

In other words the legislative the executive and the judiciary are only bound by what follows i. e. basic rights, not Article 1 para 2 i. e. human rights. Therefore German courts decide against human rights if there is a conflict, e. g. the highest Court in the German land Rhineland-Palatinate LG Mainz (1 QS 25/98) stated that the court can not give access to documents (as human rights would demand), because it is the parliament, which would have to give this right. This court expresses here that they are not allowed to do what human rights would say. Therefore human right violations are well documented: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/de_human_rights.htm in many cases. On the other hand courts are faithful to laws from pre-democratic times: The Long Arm of the (Nazi) Law: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/bockmann_nazi_law.htm. This law has not been considered unconstitutional by the constitutional court.

The mothers and fathers of the German constitution have not taken into account, that German history has done a damage to those who should practice and make real human rights in Germany: Those who are in power share with the majority of those who are governed the lack of knowledge and/or courage to live human rights in real life. Germans are the last in Europe to dare to demand human rights and the "acknowledgement" is therefore useless. Most of Germans will have to develop from servile spirits to humans.

The executive and judicative power does not give confidence always to be committed to human rights and does not respect the UN declaration of human rights, the European Convention of Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Why abuse national sovereignty so much?

Will the German Bundestag promote and make human rights a reality?

According to Com 2002/0247 the "Union must build up an EU-wide area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights". How long will EU tolerate member states not respecting human rights?. Will the Bundestag remove a black hole in the area of freedom?

European governments and Ombudsmen invite the Commissioner of Human Rights of the CoE: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Commissioner_H.R/Communication_Unit/Documents/By_series/Visit_Reports/index.asp#TopOfPage .

Who is the Ombudsman in Germany? Nobody from Germany shows up when European Ombudsmen meet: http://commissioner.coe.int/new/dyn/docs.asp?L=2&S=4 . Therefore there is no possibility to learn international standards.

I would like to suggest that the Bundestag gives the advice to the government to invite the Human Rights Commissioner of the CoE to Germany. If the government refuses I suggest that the Committee of Petitions itself (who should be a kind of Ombudsman) makes a formal invitation.

Sincerely,

Walter Keim
Who will invite the Human Right Commissioner to Germany: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/coe-031128.htm
Fight against the legal advice law: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/031213rberg-en.htm
Support Freedom of Information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/foil.htm#e-mail
Support Patients' Rights: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm#e-mail

Copy: EU Council, EU Commission, EU Parliament, EU Ombudsman, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, OHCHR-UNOG G/SO 215/51 GERM ES, Chancellor, President of Bundestag, Constitutional Court, German Human Rights Commissioner, Klaus Stoltenberg (German Ministry of Justice), Committee for Human Rights.

Enclosure:

Result:

04 February 2004: Complaint to get fair answer.
09 May 2005: Court rejects the idea of fair answer.

Development:

CoE Press Release 499(2007). Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Germany, 9 – 11 and 15 – 20 October 2006: http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/WCD/latestDocuments_en.asp#: German Human Rights Institute should monitor, development of national action plan on human rights.

This publication is also a hearing: Please send comments to: walter.keim@gmail.com

Warning: I do not accept any liability that the information on these pages is correct, accurate or up to date!

Please feel free to link this site!

Visitor No. since 18. November 2003

[Petitions] [Freedom of Information] [Violations of Human Rights] [Patients Rights in Europe] [Law on Legal Advice] [Homepage]

Colours on picture: dark green: FOIA enacted. Yellow: pending law. FOIA= Freedom of Information Act