Deutsch auf Deutsch

Will the administrative court ("Verwaltungsgericht") promote an "area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights", which EU is building up according to Com 2002/0247 ?

Walter Keim, Email: walter.keim@gmail.com
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, 19. October 2004

Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht)
2. Kammer
Kirchstraße 7
D-10557 Berlin



Case 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 apply for:

  1. The Committee of Petitions has to send the "Petition on Human Rights Violations in Germany: Invitation of the Human Rights Commissioner" of 21. December 2003 to the ministry in order to start the work on it.
  2. To sentence the Committee of Petitions to give a fair answer to petition of 21. December 2001 .
  3. To sentence the Committee of Petitions, that it should have given access to documents of exchange of information between ministry and Committee of Petitions, according to letter of 27. February 2003 .
  4. Sentence the ministry of Interior that it should have given access to documents according to application of 16. October 2003 .
  5. The lack of Freedom of Information in Germany is unconstitutional because it is in contradiction with Human Rights.
  6. Amount in controversy is set to € 10.-


Bureaucracy has been asked since 7 July 2004 to send documents to the German consulate in Trondheim/Norway. On 1 September the documents of the Committee of Petitions arrived. However documents of the ministry of interior were first available 18 October 2004. From the letter of 29 April 2004 it seems that the ministry of interior not only denies access to documents in general but also § 29 Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (law on administrative court cases) which gives access to documentation send to the court.

I could see the files and got 15 copies free of charge. The Norwegian employee followed international rules that copies of small amount are free.

Unfortunately the files show that German administration is human rights phobic: Although the petition is about  human rights, the term is never used. The only comment to petition on Human Rights Violations in Germany of 21. December 2003 is: This is no petition because it ends with: "This publication is also a hearing: Please send comments to: walter.keim@gmail.com"

...

But this delay was used to by the complainant with help of the Internet and netizens to get the following information:

Recommendation (85) 13 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES
ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN1 of the Council of Europe says:

(The committee of ministers) "Recommends the governments of member States:

a. to consider the possibility of appointing an Ombudsman at national, regional or local level or for specific areas of public administration;

b. to consider empowering the Ombudsman, where this is not already the case, to give particular consideration, within his 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;

c. to consider extending and strengthening the powers of the Ombudsman in other ways so as to encourage the effective observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the functioning of the administration."

Germany is the only country in Europe, which reserved the right not to comply with CoE Recommendation (85) 13 of considering appointing an independent Ombudsman in note 2:

"Note 2 When this Recommendation was adopted, the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, in application of Article 10.2.c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies, reserved the right of his Government to comply with it or not."

 

The government protects its administration against considering to be observed by an Ombudsman with respect to human rights. But citizens are observed and punished with berufsverbot. In case Vogt vs. Germany ( - 7/1994/454/535 - EuGRZ 1995, 590 - ), Germany was condemned because of violations of freedom of opinion and freedom of association by the European Court of Human Rights. The newest berufsverbot is from 2004: http://www.gegen-berufsverbote.de/lib/international/demoenglish.html . Michael Csaszkóczy, was fired by minister Annette Schavan (CDU) in Baden-Württemberg a berufsverbot because he could not "guarantee that he will actively defend the Constitution at all times". The formulation "he guarantees that he is committed at any time ..." comes out of § 4 of the "Law for the re-establishment of the civil service" (Gesetz(es) zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums) from 23 June 1933, given by Adolf Hitler's government, due to the "enabling act" (Ermächtigungsgesetzes, 24. March 1933), which suspended parliament. Hitler demanded "commitment to national state", but the principal remained, that the citizen has to show his innocence by proving that that doubts are not justified. There are more violations of human rights in Germany: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/de_human_rights.htm

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 and CoE 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.

Because the German Institut for Human Rights can not (sa shown above) do it, I have published my own collection of human right violations in Germany http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/de_human_rights.htm (no German page is read more often :-), which is updated continuesly and follows up the petition of 21. December 2003.

[The President Luzius Wildhaber European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) criticized the German government and the German constitutional court. The fact that judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are not followed by German courts shows lack of commitment to Europe: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,327801,00.html. Germany violates Article 46 of the European Convention of Human Rights to obey judgments. This violation also violates EU treaties.]

This policy is regrettably tolerated by the German Parliament, public, most of the press, civil society and many citizens. However the complainant has emigrated from Germany to the European "area of freedom, security and justice" with a "guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for human rights" outside Germany and not recognized by Germany. Therefore this complaint was easier to file.  

..

In October 2004 the German parliament plans to discuss a draft Freedom of Information Law. Because of excessive use of exceptions the Information Commissioner of the land Schleswig-Holstein, warns that the law may become a "law to prevent access" (Verweigerungsgesetz): http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=514921. Germany would progress from last place to second last place: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,322577,00.html und http://www.fr-aktuell.de/ressorts/nachrichten_und_politik/thema_des_tages/?cnt=514920 writes Manfred Redelfs (Greenpeace), the speaker of a coalition of journalists, the anti-corruption-organisation Transparency International and the Humanistic Union. Therefore it seems that the administration (see "Aufstandes der Amtsschimmel" Die Zeit, 15/2002) will win over the parliament, also newspaper "Die Zeit" wrote: "But the resistance of all ministerial bureaucrats against a law are old-fashioned because the revolution is also found in Germany (i. e. 4 of 16 lander)".

[According to Article 20 Basic Law: "All state authority is derived from the people." and "the executive and the judiciary are bound by law" (given by parliament elected by the people) "and justice". Therefore in Germany a democracy of European type is possible, if members of parliament want it and go for it.]

Article 6 (1) of OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION says:

The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.

Germany has according to Article 23 of the Basic Law to cooperate with EU with respect to "protection of basic rights".

The Committee of Petitions and the Ministry of Interior do not guarantee to always be committed (wording used in berufsverbot cases up to 2004) to Human Rights and do not respect the TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, the 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.


I apply for:

  1. The Committee of Petitions has to send the "Petition on Human Rights Violations in Germany: Invitation of the Human Rights Commissioner" of 21. December 2003 to the ministry in order to start the work on it.
  2. To sentence the Committee of Petitions to give a fair answer to petition of 21. December 2001 .
  3. To sentence the Committee of Petitions, that it should have given access to documents of exchange of information between ministry and Committee of Petitions, according to letter of 27. February 2003 .
  4. Sentence the ministry of Interior that it should have given access to documents according to application of 16. October 2003 .
  5. The lack of Freedom of Information in Germany is unconstitutional because it is in contradiction with Human Rights.
  6. Amount in controversy is set to € 10.-


Sincerely,


Walter Keim
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim
E-Mail: walter.keim@gmail.com
Human Right violations in Germany: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/de_human_rights.htm
Support Freedom of Information: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/foil.htm#e-mail
Support Patients' Rights: http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/patients.htm#e-mail

 

Please feel free to link this site!

Visitor No. since 18. November 2003

[Administrative case]     [Petitions]     [Human Right Violations]    [Freedom of Information]     [Homepage]  

Picture: Dark green: Law in effect. Bright green: Freedom of information in constitution only. Yellow: Pending law. FOIA= Freedom of Information Act

Informationsfreiheitgesetze in EuropaInformationsfreiheit in Europa