English Version

Report of Judicial Injustice


Violation of Human Rights by Courts in Bremen

The European Court of Human Rights
convicted
on 6th October 2005 the Federal Republik of Germany .


On 6 October 2005 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held that the German courts have violated my human rights by an overlong duration of twenty years of civil proceedings before the Bremen Regional Court and the Hanseatic Court of Appeal in Bremen concerning a commercial partnership. In these proceedings I sued the defendants for the purpose of paying me my outstanding net profits and of realising my managerial rights of the commercial partnership. The judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 6 October 2005 is published on the web-site of the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights stated the violation of my human rights though the counsels of the German Government pleaded wrong allegations in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights which came close to deceitful plea. The German Government pleaded untruly for the purpose of hiding the violation of my human rights.

The German Government alleged that I had to lodge a complaint against an order of suspending the proceedings issued by the Hanseatic Court of Appeal of 9 July 1998 for the purpose of exhausting the remedies before the German courts. But pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure there was no complaint admissible against orders of a Court of Appeal.
Additionally, the German Government alleged without naming any facts and any evidence that I had abused the proceedings before the German courts for carrying out a deeply rooted family dispute. This allegation is untrue. No family matters occurred in the civil proceedings before the German courts. Thus the German Government were not able to name any facts and any evidence for the alleged family dispute being allegedly matter of the civil proceedings. The German Government even did not explain how I could have abused the proceedings. It is impossible that I had abused the proceedings because I am the victim of the courts‘ violations of my procedural rights. And furthermore, courts must not tolerate to be abused by anybody. A judiciary that complies with its constitutional binding to law and right must not tolerate to be abused by anyone.

It is unacceptable that the German Government which is obligated to respect the human rights and human dignity pursuant to Article 1 of the Basic Law of Germany pleaded untruly before the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of hiding violations of human rights done by German authorities. Instead of stopping the courts from violating my human rights or instead of granting me reparation the German Government manipulated the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

I wrote Federal Minister of Justice, Mrs. Zypries, and requested her to rectify the German Government’s wrong submissions before the European Court of Human Rights. The ministry of justice denied having made wrong allegations. But it could not give any evidence for its allegations.

I have made the experience that the German Government discusses human rights only with respect to violation by foreign states. But in Germany itself many violations of human rights have been committed, have been covered up and have been glossed over by German authorities.

A duration of civil proceedings of more than twenty years does not happen accidentally or erroneously, but only if serious violations of basic principles of law have occurred.
In my case the judges have among other things violated my right of fair hearing and have ignored what I submitted to the courts. The judges tried to press me into accepting disadvantageous settlements. They tried to press me into giving up my co-ownership share of an inherited plot of land and into leaving the commercial partnership administering the plot of land. I did not agree in such settlements. Thus the judges conducted a systematic deprivation of rights, a cold expropriation and a calculated debasement against me.
For the purpose of denying my managerial rights in the commercial partnership the Court of Appeal interpreted the partnership agreement wrongly and in obvious contrast to all partners‘ will submitted unanimously to the court. Thus the Court of Appeal violated the principle of liberty to contract, which is granted by the German constitution, i.e the German Basic Law. By this deprivation of rights the Court of Appeal tried to make me giving up my share of the plot of land. But I did not so.
The Court of Appeal continued in depriving my rights under breaching its obligation to be neutral against all parties of the proceedings and induced the defendants, i.e. my partners of the commercial partnership and co-owners of the plot of land, in the oral hearing of 18 December 1997 to conduct a compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction for the purpose of depriving me of my share of the plot of land. The Court of Appeal informed the defendants that they would be condemned to lose their managerial rights if they did not conduct a compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction. For the purpose of avoiding their conviction the defendants followed that incitement and requested next day the District Court to conduct a compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction.
By order of 9 July 1998 the Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings under the pretence that the result of the proceedings of the compulsory sale of the plot of land would have to be waited for before continuing the proceedings concerning the commercial partnership because the result of the compulsory sale of the plot of land would be allegedly decisive for the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal argued contrary to law that the commercial partnership would have to be terminated and my claims would have been inadmissible if the plot of land would have been sold by the public auction. The Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings though the proceedings had lasted twelve years till then and had been ripe for judgement.

Having suspended the proceedings due to the compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction the same chamber of the Court of Appeal rejected all my remedies against the compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction. These judges wanted to avoid that the proceedings of the compulsory sale of the plot of land by public auction were stopped. On 9 July 2001, i.e. exactly three years after the date of the order of suspension of 9 July 1998, the plot of land was sold by public auction and just to one of the defendants who should be condemned to lose her managerial rights as the Court of Appeal had reported in the oral hearing of 18 December 1997 and in the rapporteur’s written votes.

My remedies for getting back my share of the plot of land were all finally rejected by that chamber of the Court of Appeal that had suspended the proceedings concerning the commercial partnership.

The courts of Bremen also thwarted that I got any counter-performance for losing my share of the plot of land. Thus the judiciary machinery of Bremen conducted a cold expropriation against me.

After the judiciary machinery of Bremen had conducted this cold expropriation against me it violated my human dignity in further proceedings concerning my pecuniary reparation claims for losing the plot of land. The judiciary machinery tried to deny my capability to sue and to be sued. The judiciary machinery of Bremen wanted to silence me, but failed to do so. I proved my capability to sue and to be sued by winning the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights against Germany without any support by a lawyer. In a newspaper article of the Southern German Newspaper (Süddeutsche Zeitung) of 16/17 August 1980 professor Dr. Joachim Hellmer impressively elucidated that the German authorities abused such allegations only for the purpose of reducing discerning people to silence.

Only after the European Court of Human Rights had declared my application admissible the Court of Appeal reopened the suspended proceedings but continued in protracting the proceedings till the final decision of the European Court of Human Rights was delivered. After the European Court of Human Rights had published its judgement of 6 October 2005 the Court of Appeal issued a judgement on 26 January 2006 and let me lose the law-suit concerning the commercial partnership for the purpose of punishing me for filing an application at the European Court of Human Rights.

By judgement of 26 January 2006 the Court of Appeal rejected my claims though itself had mentioned in the oral hearing of 18 December 1997 and the Bremen Regional Court had decided on 1 April 1997 that my claims were justified. The Court of Appeal did not reject my claims on the grounds that these claims would have become inadmissible due to the compulsory sale of the plot of land but the Court of Appeal took a point of view in contrast to its own opinion mentioned in the oral hearing of 18 December 1997, in contrast to the rapporteur judge’s and presiding judge´s votes and in contrast to the Bremen Regional Courts judgement of 1 April 1997. The Court of Appeal did not say a single word about the allegedly decisive result of the compulsory sale of the plot of land in its judgement.
The Court of Appeal ignored all my submissions which I made during the more than twenty years lasting proceedings. The courts did not even finish a taking of evidence.
The overlong duration of the proceedings stated by the European Court of Human Rights only was the result of a systematic deprivation of rights, of a cold expropriation and a result of a calculated debasement which the Court of Appeal conducted against me.

Now the city state of Bremen tries to execute the court fees against me. I shall pay for a more than twenty years lasting injustice, I shall pay for a judiciary machinery which protracted the proceedings for more than twenty years for the purpose of conducting a systematic deprivation of rights, a cold expropriation and a calculated debasement against me and I shall even pay the courts for violating my human rights.

In the proceedings of executing the court fees I was threatened with further serious violations of my human rights, because I refused to take an oath of disclosure concerning my property after the courts have robbed my whole property under violation of my human rights.

The conduct of the German courts is political persecution. The German judiciary persecutes me because I criticise the grievances in the German judiciary.

This persecution is not restricted on my person but concerns also my husband. Since I filed my application at the European Court of Human Rights the local administrative body and the local administrative court practice chicanery against my husband.

The injustice me and my husband suffered by the German authorities seems to be similar to the injustice which is practised typically by dictatorships.

More information in English will follow.

Gisela Mueller

© 2009 Gisela Müller

Advertisements