Will the European Court of Human Rights support an "area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights", according to Com 2002/0247 which EU is building up with the help of the Fundamental Rights Agency (COM(2005)280)?
Walter Keim, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, 12. November 2005
VG 2 A 85.04: Walter Keim vs. Federal Republic of Germany:
Freedom of Information (including access to public documents) and Right to get fair answers to Petitions (Article 17 Basic Law)
I immigrated 5. February 1982 to the European "area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights, which will be guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights Agency.
The European "area of freedom, security and justice" can be characterized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU giving Freedom of Information in Article 42, access to documents in Article 41 (2), the right to complain in Article 43 (Ombudsman) and the right to fair answers within reasonable time in Article 41 (1).
In protest against human right violations in Baden-Wurttemberg and Germany (which I tried to make pubic authorities aware of7) I gave also up my address in Germany 7. March 2002 1 (which I had since birth in 1948).
On 11 July 2002 the Courrier Citoyen d'Europe of the EU Parliament informed me about the possibility to access documents according to Act of 25 May 1976 on administrative procedure (Article 29 of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz). This created the idea and a new German word "Akteneinsichtserzwingungsklage" (=complaint to force access to documents). The good news is that I could see the files of the ministry of interior and the federal parliament 19. October 2004 as part of Case VG 2 A 85.04: Walter Keim vs. Federal Republic of Germany. The bad news is that I lost the case and have to pay 770.- for 15 copies and having asked for a fair answer within reasonable time.
I complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court case 1 BvR 1981/05 1 about the sentence of the higher administrative court (Oberverwaltungsgerichtes) OVG 1 L 42.05 of 30. May 2005. The constitutional court did not rule according to the European "area of freedom, security and justice" and does not give a guarantee to always be committed to the TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU . Therefore 11. November 2005 this case was brought to the ECHR. In addition the UN Petition Team 4 was informed and the European Parliament (my "Home parliament") will be contacted 11. December 2005 6 with the suggestion to start consultations to avoid to have to expel Germany.
I suppose that the administrative court will respect Article 46 of the ECHR: "Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the present Convention.", and therefore the bill of 27 October 2005 for court costs will be stopped until the ECHR has come to a decision 5 (my "Home court").
I am - of course - satisfied that the President of the German parliament Bundestag send my petition on 22. December 2004 to chancellor Schröder and the parliament Bundestag adopted this law - as I suggested - against the will of the government. However the law is only for federal agencies. Therefore 12 petitions were written to the 12 states without Freedom of Information. I was very happy to detect that some of the new states (in East Germany) e. g. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern acknowledge the right of fair answers within reasonable time in their constitutions. The committee of petitions of the parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern even informed me about the comments of the minister of interior, without me having to ask. After I have given my comments 18. October 2005 the minister of interior 26. October 2005 said he now changed his opinion and is working out a law proposal.
[Im Urteil des Amtsgerichts Bonn vom 21.Dezember 2005, Az. 9 C 390/05 wird der Streitwert für die Offenlegung von Forschungsgutachten auf hundert Euro festgesetzt. Dabei geht es um 1,3 Milliarden. Denn genau so viel Steuergeld verteilt die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) im Jahr aufgrund geheimer Gutachten an antragstellende Wissenschaftler oder Hochschulen. Trotzdem wurde die Offenlegung verneint.]
The old-fashioned idea of citizens not having the right of fair answer within reasonable time and no ombudsman for free complaints is even in Germany going out of date.
Will these old-fashioned ideas defended of the hillbillies B. Schaefer of the administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht) Berlin and Fitzner-Steinmann, Dr. Peters, Dr. Blumenberg higher administrative court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) Berlin-Brandenburg with astronomic high amounts of controversy (i. e. 12000.-) be soon outdated? In the European area of freedom access to documents and fair answers within reasonable time are free and do not cost 770.- .
Published on Internet:
Copy: OHCHR-UNOG G/SO 215/51 GERM ES, EU Commission, EU Parliament, EU Council, Council of Europe, OSCE, OECD, PACE and UN
PS: Thank you all for informing me. Please do not hesitate to contact me: email@example.com.
[Administrative case] [Petitions] [Human Right Violations] [Freedom of Information] [Homepage]
Colours on picture: dark green: FOIA enacted. Yellow: pending law. FOIA= Freedom of Information Act