[Family Rights]    [Freedom of Information]    [Human Right Violations in Germany]    [Petitions]    [Back to Homepage]

Result: Human Rights Council Report about Jugendamt

Both governments and embassies have approached Germany for many years because of international family and child conflicts. Especially foreign parents have had dramatic conflicts with German Jugendamt and courts.

Foreigners report to be shocked meeting German administration and courts e. g. not having even heard when decisions were made and of many other forms of unfair treatment. 5 German states are the last states in the civilized world to deny freedom of information i. e. the "Right to Know" or access to public information. While Germans have been subject to these denials for ages (eg. lack the right to good administration, lack of separation of powers), foreigners are used to these civil rights and do not accept human right violations.

German judiciary lacks independence according to Art. 6 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF)) to protect citizens rights and human rights against the "Jugendamt" and other authorities. Judges in federal states are hired, promoted and supervised by the governments.

When administrative courts were founded, there was no supervision of judges, because it would have been a disadvantage for citizens who complain against the administration lead by the government. However the dictator Hitler added supervision of courts. Before the Prussian administrative courts (Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgericht) have been without supervision since 1875, as well as e. g. administrative courts in Saxony. But § 7 sentence 1 of the first regulation ("Durchführungsverordnung) of 29. April 1941 of the decree of the fuehrer ("Führer-Erlass") on the establishment of the administrative court of the Reich (Imperial Law Gazette RGBl I S. 201: Erste DV = RGBl I S. 224) gave the minister of justice of the Reich supervision rights.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. The UPR is a significant innovation of the Human Rights Council which is based on equal treatment for all countries. It provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights. The UPR also includes a sharing of best human rights practices around the globe.

25. April 2013 the human rights situation of Germany was reviewed. 96 states gave their comments and made approx. 200 recommendations. Each delegation had 74 seconds to give their contribution.

• "31. Poland requested to know about its recommendation made at the first review regarding judicial control over the administrative decisions of the Jugendamt and about measures taken to meet the international obligations arising from article 17 of ICCPR. Poland made a recommendation.
• 59. Turkey noted insecurity caused by growing xenophobia and the killing of 10 persons by the National Socialist Underground. It noted the separation of Turkish children from their families by the Jugendamt and criticism of that body’s actions. Turkey made recommendations.
• 115. Italy requested Germany to elaborate on the specific measures it intended to take for migrant children to overcome possible obstacles encountered in accessing higher education. It referred to concerns about the work of the Jugendamt."
  

• "123.49: Secure proper follow-up to the accepted recommendation from the first UPR cycle and introduce tools that will improve the effective judicial control over the administrative decisions of the Office of Youth called Jugendamt (Poland); [approx. 5]
  
• 123.145. Introduce independent and effective legal and professional supervision of the Youth Office (Jugendamt) and ensure that the Jugendamt decisions be in conformity with binding international norms, including the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (Turkey); [approx. 3, approx. 4]
• 123.169. Federal and State Governments, in consultation with civil society, broaden and intensify existing human rights training in schools as well as the routine training of police, security, prison and health personnel, and set up a monitoring and evaluation mechanism to assess progress (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);" [4]
• 123.22: Ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Austria); (Article 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 are about ATI in various fields.) [UNCAC mentioned in Baltic Sea NGO Forum Submission]
• 123.28: Withdraw all reservations to human rights instruments to which Germany is a party, first of all, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Russian Federation); [2]
  
• 123.42: Align its national legislation with international human rights standards (Iraq); [indirect 1, 3, approx. 5]
  
• 123.46: Expand the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights to receiving complaints of human rights violations (India);" [7]
• Conclusion: Suggestions 2,3,4 and 7 of the Baltic Sea NGO Forum were recommended by states. Publishing international conventions [6] could support education in international law (see recommendation 123.169). Freedom of Information law [1] and independent judges [5] is indirectly support by recommendation 123.42 (Align its national legislation with international human rights standards). Therefore only decriminalisation of defamation [8] is missing, ATI [1], independent judges [5] and publish CCPR, ESCR on Internet [6] are indirectly included.

• 124.22: "Accepted. Before ratifying the United Nations Convention against Corruption, an adaptation of the legislation regarding the criminal offence of bribery of members of parliament is needed. A corresponding draft legislative bill should be submitted by members of the German Bundestag."
• 124.28: (Withdraw reservations e. g. ICCCP): "Accepted. Legal regulations and their implementation already comply with international standards and norms. "
• 124.42: (Align its national legislation with international human rights standards): "Accepted."
• 124.46: "Not accepted."
• 124.49: (control over Office of Youth): "Accepted. Already now it is possible to subject decisions made by the Youth Welfare Office to judicial review."
• 124.145: (supervision of Office of Youth)"Accepted. It is already possible to have decisions taken by the Youth Welfare Office examined by a court to verify their compliance with applicable German law and also with the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings with regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights."
• 124.169: "Accepted. Human rights education is embedded in state school curriculums. It is constantly reviewed, as is human rights basic and further training in the Federal Police. Additional monitoring is not necessary."