An international scandal – The Lithuanian judge is responsible for all „Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights“ concerning complaints versus Lithuania

July 20, 2014
By HRL

According to secret information, which reached us from a reliable source in the European Court of Human Rights, absolutely no Court hearings are taking place within the framework of the so-called “Written procedure”, only approximately 30 (thirty) complaints out of approximately 185000 cases are being examined by the Grand Chamber in a public hearing, which does already constitute a serious and systematical violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

The so-called “written procedure” came into being only after November, 1998, the grounds of the newly instituted European judicial bureaucracy, completely state-dependent, since then having acquired power within the Court instead of the former professors of Human Rights and International law: we have no time to examine each case in a public hearing.
It goes without saying that they (35 judges for 185000 cases) have no time, but then they were under an obligation to declare the European Court of Human Rights bankrupt, instead of craftily and insidiously inventing and introducing the so-called “written procedure”, by this evil trick seriously violating Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.


Egidijus Kūris, formerly communist youth functionary and an especially trustworthy communist party member, “to the utmost degree worthy of the honourable name of a communist”

All complaints and letters as well as documents (decisive, essential and important ones) submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, even those, which are submitted “private and personal” to the president of the Court, Mr. Dean Spielmann or to the president of the second chamber for Lithuanian cases, Guido Raimondi, are handed over to the Lithuanian legal secretary of all persons, Mr. M. Černiauskas.

Already the fact that a member of the regime, although having taken an “oath”, which is completely meaningless and wortless (otherwise we could delete “perjury” and “decision obtained by fraud using means of procedure” from the Penal Code), cooperates with the Lithuanian judge and reporter of all persons, Mr., Egidijus Kūris, (a person, who formerly was „a person, to the highest possible degree worthy of the honourable name of a communist”, all the time a very active and confident supporter and collaborator of the unlawful occupational regime in Lithuania, apart from that a functionary of the communist youth organisation and holder of a Lenin scholarship, all of which facts are telling. He even ventured upon defending his former communist party comrade Laszlo Kiss in the complaint of “Krisztian Ungvary v. Hungary”, in the European Court of Human Rights, together with the judges from the former Warsaw-Pact states, which shows his and their continuing allegiance to the former communist regimes.

M. Černiauskas and Egidijus Kūris then have a look into the complaint and decide, what way they might manipulate a certain complaint, which might be especially inconvenient for the Lithuanian regime (consisting only of collaborators and criminals of the former unlawful occupational regime, as no desovietization ever took place in Lithuania), e.g. disregarding the essential content of this complaint or declaring it simply unimportant or ineffective. They are both operating beyond control and with impunity, because they – having immunity – are beyond prosecution (however only as long as their immunity is not waived). In this connection one should mention a certain sentence from the website of the Lithuanian administration of courts:
Nebaudžiamumas skatina nusikalsti – Hortatur facinus impunitate – Impunity encourages the commission of crimes

When examining a complaint, M. Černiauskas informs Mr. Kūris about the contents of it and his suggestions for a decision, Egidijus Kūris then prepares the “Decision of the European Court of Human Rights” as a draft and sees to it that it does not contain any points detrimental for his regime.

This so-called “Written procedure” simply means that the reporter of the second section, examining Lithuanian complaints, – the reporter in all sections is always the representative of the defendant state of all people (in the second section this is Mr. Egidijus Kūris of all people, whose father Pranas Kūris („minister of justice“ and member of the central committee of the communist party of, an organ of unlawfully occupied Lithuania) was one of the most high-ranking collaborators of the unlawful occupational regime) – prepares and compiles the so-called ”Project of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights”, after that (together with many other such projects of “Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”) has it taken to the other judges of the second section „for deliberation in private” , which means that a court employee pushes a cart with approximately 50 of such projects of “Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”, compiled by Mr. Egidijus Kūris of all persons, and then tips the content of the cart unto the desk of each judge, successively. After a while, a “mountain” of such papers will have accumulated of the desk of each judge.

It is absolutely obvious that the judges will shove this “mountain of paperwork” aside, because they have to concentrate on the preparation of approximately 30 cases for a public hearing in the Grand Chamber.

As such non-reaction of these judges of the section is interpreted as acceptance of these “projects”, the “project” of Mr. Egidijus Kūris is – wondrously – transformed into the “Decision of the European Court of Human Rights “. In extremely rare cases a judge – by pure chance or when something strucks his eye as impossible, when superficially scanning the first page of one of such decisions, the judges, by way of exemption, nevertheless examine one of these projects (the project of decision, not the case file itself, which is an essential difference). However, approximately 99.99% of such “projects of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights” are transformed into the “Decision of the European Court of Human Rights” (without any alterations), as the six judges really have no time to check all the details of a complaint.

This being so, there does not exist a document of this “Decision of the European Court of Human Rights” with the original signatures of all the seven judges, although the claimant will be sent a letter with the names of the judges. However, all such letters are being sent to the claimant by the Lithuanian legal secretary M. Černiauskas, who is authorized to act on behalf of the section registrar, the Court registrar, the judges, the president of the section or the president of the European Court of Human Rights, being also authorized to use computer-generated textblocks and computer-generated signatures of the above-mentioned persons*), while these persons (mentioned by M. Černiauskas in his letters to claimants) know nothing of his steps, because they don’t see anything, they don’t hear anything, they don’t examine anything, they don’t undersign anything …
*) Article 17 (4) of the Rules of Court refers to the “General instructions drawn up by the Registrar, and approved by the President of the Court, shall regulate the working of the Registry”. However, this document (containing the far-reaching authorizations of the legal secretary, seriously violating Article 6 of the Convention) is top secret and not shown to anyone upon request, not to the media, not to NGO’s. “They” know why.

For these reasons it is safe to say that Mr. Egidijus Kūris is lying in wait in Strasbourg just like a spider, lurking to catch all the ”insects” flying over from Lithuania, in his web.

In connection with the aforesaid it should also be stressed that the former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, currently judge of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, Mrs. Danutė Jočienė, during a conversation with Mrs. Jūratė Kiaunienė in Vilnius on August 4, 2009 warned her: “don’t hope to find justice in Strasbourg, there is no justice there“.

One cannot but agree with this competent opinion of a judge. The „written procedure“ does not comply with the requirements of a court governed by the rule of law, to say the least.

Conclusion and demand:

As a first step is has to be demanded to transfer the functions of a reporter to an independent expert named by the International Law Court in The Hague or to an expert of International Law from the Amsterdam International Law Clinic, as a second step to replace the judges, who represent the defendant states in the European Court of Human Rights, against independent experts of Human Rights and International law (definitely not with sham “experts” from former Warsaw-Pact countries).

Finally there remain only two options – eliminate the European Court of Human Rights altogether, if tens of thousands of new complaints keep on flooding this Court or impose punitive damages on states, which repeatedly violate the human rights protected by the Convention, for example one million euros for each case of a violation of human rights, which would have the inevitable effect that – sooner or later – there would not occur any repeated violations of human rights in such states.
To be continued

One Response to An international scandal – The Lithuanian judge is responsible for all „Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights“ concerning complaints versus Lithuania

  1. Sergei Antonov on May 27, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Frans Timmermans
    First Vice President, Commission of European Union
    Rue de la Loi 200 / Wetstraat 200
    1049 Brussels
    Belgium 29 April 2015

    Respected First Vice President,

    I am writing in connection with the concerns regarding the way how my individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights are/have been processed. I have submitted the following applications 45510/13, 70016/13 and 67260/14. I have so far received a decision on the admissibility in case no 67260/14, with the letter from the Court from 27 November 2014. Judge D. Popović decided in single format that the application is manifestly ill-founded, assisted by rapporteur.
    My concerns are the following, which, in my opinion, touch a wider structural problem how the ECtHR is reviewing the applications in the admissibility stage. Although the Court is not under the Commission’s jurisdiction, I wish to direct your attention to problems with the protection of human rights within the EU countries and I am asking for your comments below.
    First, the decision in case 67260/14 was adopted by a judge in single format in the period of 06 – 20 November 2014. The letter from the court specifies that decision had been delivered on last mentioned date (Attachment 1). It raises the question whether the judge in reality reviewed the application and related documents, or made the decision on the basis of a summary or memorandum prepared by a court official (rapporteur). In the latter event it would appear, that the judge has not secured to me as the applicant the right of individual petition, since the decision on admissibility is made on someone else’s observations. Article 24 § 2 of the Convention does not authorize court officials to assume adjudicatory functions. The role of the rapporteur remains thus unclear. Therefore, can you please clarify, whether the current application procedure exercised by the ECtHR, where the single judge adopts decisions on admissibility, secure to each applicant the legal certainty that the judge himself or herself gets fully acquainted with the application and documents submitted. If not, then on the basis of what information the decision is made and how has composed this information?
    This concern is illustrated further in situations, where the documents attached to an application is written not in English or French, but the judge making the decision on admissibility most likely does not understand the language in which the application is written and had to rely on an opinion of a rapporteur, who is normally has roots or relations to a state concerned. In my cases some documents were in the Lithuanian language, since the Court allows documents to be submitted in the original language as well. How can I be assured that the judge, who does not know Lithuanian, was able to study these documents? If there is no such assurance, then it also means that my right of individual application was restricted and was not independent of possible influence from the state concerned, would you agree? I point out, that according to the information available at the Court’s website is clearly written, that the Court will make decisions on the basis of the information and documents submitted by the parties. Has this rule been upheld in my case?
    Secondly, I am concerned by the absence of reasons in the decision on admissibility. The standard formulation used does not give to me, or to other applicants in comparable situations, the benefit of understanding the reasons behind the Court’s refusal to accept the application for deliberations. My cases concern grave violations which have been systematically exercised by various Lithuanian authorities against me for a long period of time in 2007-2014. The applications contain proof of these violations, enabling me to conclude, that the Lithuanian authorities are acting with some degree of co-ordination against me domestically as well as internationally. They have destroyed my investments which I have made in Lithuania as a Swedish citizen and sucked me with followed-by fines. They have ruined my business in Lithuania and now they are trying to ruin my businesses and business perspective in other EC countries like Estonia and Sweden are, as well as me personally. Moreover, having left Lithuania for Estonia, I am receiving deadly threats from persons in Lithuania participated in court case (re. Application 70016/13 to ECtHR) in Lithuania. Threats came from same Email address that was accepted as witness source in above mentioned court case against me, promising, literally, that “one more letter and you will be pissing blood in that Strasbourg of yours”. This can be well characterized as flagrant denial of justice, or, if you permit, the judicial destruction of me as a person.
    Situation described in all three applications shows persistent way of personal and business destruction taken against me by Lithuanian authorities, which is in short:
    1. Application 45510/13 refers to the fact when I was appointed by Lithuanian Supreme Court ruling as shareholder of Lithuanian company UAB Ecolsta. This was done against my will and without my signature on the share purchase contract being present in all court process documents; field “buyer’s signature” there remains blank. Court even refused to return placed by me in 2007 deposit for the shares sale negotiation, regardless of above company failure to prove its good standing order due to uncovered fact that this company was fraudulently presented to me as working company with good business history and assets, in fact this company never had any business since the date of its incorporation in 2005 and lacked any valuable assets. This was the reason why after inspection I refused to buy 1/3 part of the shares of the said company and requested my deposit back.
    2. Application 70016/13 refers to the fact what I was accused in criminal case of slander and found guilty for “slander in court case correspondence documents”. Even a formulation of this sentence wording opens new era in Lithuanian judicial system, mocking the very essence of such in common, wouldn’t you agree? This case was initiated by above mentioned Lithuanian company UAB Ecolsta and was based on the court materials of the court case relevant to the company shares sale attempt, as mentioned in No. 1 above. I have gone through all legal chain of proceedings up to Supreme Court of Lithuania asking for true investigation of the interlinked cases events, but Supreme Court had refused to look at the case, formally accepting the foregoing court ruling and therefore had granted to such nonsense case a law rights to upkeep in Lithuanian judicial system.
    3. Application 67260/14 refers to the fact that I was fined by request made in 2011 and in favour of the abovementioned UAB Ecolsta, the amount of money larger than was my initial loan given to this company in 2007 for 15% per annum. Not to mentioned my “disappeared” deposit for 1/3 company shares. My initial loan neither interest rate was ever returned to me, moreover, these bank transferred amounts were not declared when company UAB Ecolsta started bankruptcy in 2009. The reasons for the case were the facts that, after discovery of fraudulent UAB Ecolsta issue in 2007, I established and had invested in 100% owned by me company UAB Correx Baltija in Lithuania. Please pay attention to the above case start date (2011) and the date when this never working UAB Ecolsta started bankruptcy process (2009), it will give you even more understanding of very much questionable essence of Lithuanian judicial system. This was a company UAB Ecolsta that NEVER had any business but spent in court most of its “business” life 2005-2007-2014. The decision to fine me was later supported by Supreme Court of Lithuania in 2014 that made me to seek justice in ECtHR.
    As you know by now above mentioned application 67260/14 was declared as inadmissible to ECtHR by Judge D. Popović and his rapporteur on the case.
    In order to prevent application 67260/14 documents from destruction, as was mentioned in the letter of ECtHR’s legal secretary Mr. M. Cerniauskas, dated November 27, 2014, I had requested in my letter to ECtHR dd. April 24, 2015, that said documents must be sent to my residential address in Estonia. I am ready to resubmit this application immediately, upon your written acceptance and notification.
    You can see by looking at the above mentioned facts that my application 67260/14 is an integral part of my fight for my human rights against described above and very much obvious Lithuanian corruption; this fight started with application 45510/13 and continued in application 70016/13 followed by said application 67260/14.
    I have to draw your attention to the number of facts that enlighten possible backgrounds of the above described situation as per applications 45510/13, 70016/13 and 67260/14:
    1. Owner of UAB Ecolsta is Mr. Ivan Sigizmund Nevoina was on search warrant of Interpol (Attachment 2) for 3 consecutive years 2007-2010 with charge for fraud in multi million case of fraud in petroleum products trading. His main holding company bears a name of UAB Lit-Invest, i.e. “Invest to Lithuania” and I can assure you that among other many victims of his I am only one with strong determination to get to ECtHR for true justice. His lawyer on all court cases is Mr. Gintaras Balciunas (Attachment 3), former Minister of Justice of Lithuania for two consecutive governments. Mr. G. Balciunas was accused in Lithuanian media in 2009 as “briber connected to Prosecutors office”. Mr. I. Nevoina close friend since 1994 is also chief prosecutor of Vilnius County, Mr. Ramutis Janciavicius, who holds same position there since 1995 and several times wrote documents in extreme favour of Mr. I. Nevoina, such as long and very much fictional petition to Interpol with request to release Mr. Nevoina (Attachment 4).
    2. I have legally in writing approached President of Lithuania Ms. Dalia Gribauskaite three times in 2010, 2011 and 2013. My applications were forwarded by President to Prosecutors office in Vilnius. No results.
    3. During 2007-2014 I have legally in writing approached for several times different institutions in Lithuania: anti-corruption committee of Lithuanian Parliament, bankruptcy commission of Ministry on Economic of Lithuania, Prosecutors’ office in Lithuania. No results.
    4. Five times during 2007-2014 against me and my company UAB Correx Baltija were initiated investigations by Prosecutors’ office, which extremely sabotaged my business and private life; then these investigations had been dismissed with no outcome or reimbursement for damages incurred to me. The longest one lasted for 18 months instead of 6 months required by law. My property and my company property UAB Correx Baltija in Lithuania several times was under/out of arrest for 2007-2014 years greatly disturbing and sabotaging my business possibilities.
    5. Following fact in No.4 above I was continuously urged in 2009-2011 to buy all shares of that notorious UAB Ecolsta. Deadly threats to me became somewhat common things: SMS, calls, talks, Emails, robbery and equipment sabotage of my company. I have applied for help to Lithuanian police and prosecutor’s office. No result.
    6. My company in Lithuania, UAB Correx Baltija have been denied European financial aid for developing enterprises in 2008; Lithuanian authorities proclaimed that “this company has no future”. Nevertheless products of my company under the brand name of “REXSTONE” were accepted for decoration of Astrid Lindgren’s World in Sweden, Tallinn airport, Timberland store, all major shopping malls in Vilnius and many residential projects in Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Lithuania and Estonia.
    7. In 2014 my business in Lithuania as UAB Correx Baltija had finally collapsed as new investigation started by Prosecutors office and all property in Lithuania belonging then to my Estonian company REXSTONE Baltic OU had disappeared from warehouse with traces that lead to UAB Lit-Invest people. I have not applied to Prosecutors office in Lithuania to investigate it for obvious above described reasons.
    What worries me most is that all of the above atrocities were initially done in Lithuania and now spreading out and infecting other EC member states representatives as I suspect here is strong presence of corruption. And what makes it pitiful above all, that these violations of human rights were done just to favour ambitions of one person who has high ranked connections and powerful friends in government – citizen of Lithuania, Ivan Sigizmund Nevoina. As the result in Lithuania: my business was sucked and destroyed, my invested money were stolen for his private benefits and even EC financial help in Lithuania has been proved again being a feedstock for “our selected people”. And NO ONE from Lithuanian government helped me, but one presidential adviser in 2009, V. Stankevicius, who advised : “we have overwhelming mafia here, we cannot do anything against it now and you, you get more facts and stay alive till right time comes”- So I did.
    I am confident that many other applicants to the ECtHR have applied not so much with the view of receiving adequate redress for the violation, but because they wish to put matters right. They apply because this is a matter of principle. Against this consideration, the standard short formulation declaring the application(s) inadmissible violates the fundamental principle of public trust towards the ECtHR. It seems that by allowing such short standard replies, the Court is violating principles which it has often held against member states – the requirement to provide explanations of court decisions and judgments.
    Based on the above, I kindly ask you to reply to the following questions:
    1. When the single judge adopts decisions on admissibility, does this secure to each applicant the legal certainty that the judge himself or herself gets fully acquainted with the application and documents submitted?
    2. If the reply to the first question is positive, then on the basis of what information the decision is made and how has composed this information?
    3. How is it secured that the judge who does not know the language in which the application is submitted or in which documents are attached can get directly acquainted with the submissions in the entirety without influence of the state concerned in the case (via rapporteur, to be precise)?
    4. Does the standard short formulation that the application is declared inadmissible since the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 are not met enable the applicants to understand the reasons why such decision was adopted regardless obvious facts being in present?
    5. If the reply to the former question is negative, how does the Court guarantee individual right of application against violations of human rights?
    6. Is there any method of control over the way how judges in individual format make decisions on admissibility and are not affected by some outside influence?

    I will highly appreciate soonest and comprehensive reply to my letter, as no reply in normal due time will make me to consider this approach as a reply anyway.

    I also will appreciate rightful measures taken to defend my human rights as soon as possible, as in this horrible situation were virus of corruption is spreading from newbie EC countries such Lithuania and Slovenia are and now it is infecting institutions within EC, therefore “ostrich approach” will do no good but worsen situation in future, that will lead to more grave situation and outburst in world media with above mentioned horrible facts.

    Obviously this very letter to you has already taken a part in this chain of facts and I have strong belief that truth and justice will prevail with your help and support!
    Respectfully,
    Sergei Antonov

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Fondation Princesses de Croÿ et Massimo Lancellotti - 10 Rue Faider - 1060 Bruxelles - Belgique - Droit de réponse: postmaster@droitfondamental.eu

Free counter and web stats