Ähnlicher Stoff auf Deutsch: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/031213rberg.htm
Walter Keim, E-mail: email@example.com
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, 27. February 2004
I appreciate that the Commission has plans to make Europe more competitive through the liberation on the regulation of professional services.
I would like to draw your attention to the positive effects this could have on the energy supplier market. Some years ago consumers where given the possibility to choose between several electric power suppliers.
However it is very difficult to compare the prices and conditions. Energy consultant Stefan Fügner helped his clients to safe millions. But he got a berufsverbot according to the Law on Legal Advice from 1935. He is not aloud to continue facing a possible penalty of 250000,- or 6 months prison (7U 109/01 Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht).
Lawyers who hold a monopoly are not able to provide this service. Therefore a directive to liberate Germany from this law would be a relieve. It is obviously wrong to maintain this law because of a "public interest" and "consumer protection" as German authorities claim.
I was confronted with these problems because it is not easy for Germans to get to know own legal rights, because of this monopoly on legal advice hold by lawyers, according to the Law on Legal Advice from 13. December 1935: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/de_legal_advice_law_overview.htm 3.
This monopoly is due to that 68 years ago the Reichsregierung (government) under the leadership of Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler gave the law on prevention of misuse of legal advice: http://www.rechtsberatungsgesetz.info/gesetzgebung/originalfassung.html . Implementing regulations made sure that Jews were removed from lawyers bar. In order to prevent them to give free advice, lawyers got a monopoly. Germany is the only country in the world where it is forbidden to altruistically give free legal advice. This law is still in force, because the Allies forgot to remove it after the Second World War. It is a scandal that Judicial branches in Germany still obey Adolf Hitler's laws.
Strange court decisions http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/bockmann_nazi_law.htm 2 are still possible due to this laws from pre-democratic times. I understand that the integration helper worked for a project funded by the EU. Will there be a possibility to complain to EU bodies in order to protect EU projects from old German laws? German "legal systems Robin Hood" is fighting against 1 this law at the European Court for Human Rights and the German constitutional court filed 6 April 2000. The constitutional court uses the means of unfair treatment, i. e. not deciding on the subject, thus stopping the case from being filed to the European Court for Human Rights.
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 get a berufsverbot by exclusion from the bar
membership with the help of a monopoly dating back to a
law on legal advice from 1935. The German bar
(Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer) is the successor
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
with RA Claus Plantiko: (click and add line shift) Letter
to lawyers bar (Rechtsanwaltskammer). Here is my intervention (Bundesgerichtshof
BGH AnwZ ( b ) 53/03).
With the exception of one article, German press does not report on this case. International public and international press seems not to know about this. Outside Germany this is totally unknown according to the Internet.
This is an example of the more general problem of the lack of Freedom of Information (including access to public documents) in Germany.
Freedom of Information has been promised by the German
government since 1998. A draft law has been published 2001, but
the opposition has been strong: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/030127EFIL.htm
and the support week.
My petition filed 21. December 2001 on Freedom of Information has not been answered. The Committee is waiting to get an answer from the Ministry of Interior, but the Ministry of Interior writes not to have received the petition to comment on it: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/040125bmi.htm (Sorry in German only).
Is this deadlock serious enough, that the administrative court will consider it unfair: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/verwaltungsgericht-en.htm ? Will the administrative court demand, that the Committee of petitions confirms receipt of the petition on human rights dated 21.12.2003?
In EU COM (2002) 247: Communication from the Commission - A project for the European Union chapter 1.2 The Union must build up an EU-wide area of freedom, security and justice. reads: "The European area of freedom, security and justice thus provides a guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights".
I am looking forward to your directive on this matter, which could contribute to liberate Germany from a Nazi-law.
Human Right violations in Germany: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/de_human_rights.htm
Support freedom of information: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/foi.htm#e-mail, http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/petition_eu.htm
Who is responsible for the lack of freedom of information: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/I_accuse.htm
Support patients rights: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/patients.htm#e-mail
Copy: EU Council,
President of the EU Commission, EU Parliament
Visitor No. since 30. November 2003
[Back to page on Freedom of Information] [Human Right Violations in Germany] [Law on Legal Advice] [Petitions] [Back to Homepage]