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