UN HRC bans compulsory military service worldwide, Abdullayev v Turkmenistan, 2218/2012

Mr. Abdullayev converted into a version of Christianity that considers military service as a sin (§ 4). He was sentenced for trying to avoid the service, and claimed a breach of his religious freedom before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Article 18(1) of the Covenant).

The Turkmenistan Government argued that the military service is an obligation of a national to defend the State (i.e. "we're not using the arms for bad", § 4). However the UN HRC answered that “no derogation may be made” to the freedom of religion or consciousness.

The most interesting is that § 7.7 goes much further: “no derogation may be made, even in time of public emergency”. This is an absolutely amazing revolutionary development.

LIETUVIŠKAI

Byloje Abdullayev prieš Turkmenistaną, Nr. 2218/2012, § 7.7, Jungtinės Tautos priėmė sprendimą uždrausti privalomąją karinę tarnybą visame pasaulyje, kadangi tai prieštarauja religijos, sąžinės ir minties laisvei. Pvz., Jėzaus Kristaus mokymas gali būti suprastas kaip draudžiantis imti ginklą į rankas.

Įdomiausia yra tai, kad JTO uždraudė šaukti žmones į kariuomenę net karo metu.
Daugiau informacijos lietuviškai čia.

CATALÀ

Les Nacions Unides van prohibir el servei militar obligatori a tot el món, afer Abdullayev contra Turkmenistan, no. 2218/2012.

Sr. Abdullayev va convertir-se a una versió del cristianisme que considera el servei militar com un pecat (§ 4). Va ser condemnat per intentar evitar el servei, i després va reclamar una violació de la seva llibertat religiosa davant el Comitè dels Drets Humans de les Nacions Unides (article 18 (1) del Pacte).

El Govern de Turkmenistan va sostenir que el servei militar és una obligació d'un ciutadà per defensar l'Estat (és a dir “no utilitzem les armes per fer mal”, § 4). No obstant això, el Comitè de Drets Humans de l'ONU va respondre que "no poden ser establides excepcions " a la llibertat de religió o de consciència.

El més interessant és que el § 7.7 va molt més enllà: "no poden ser establides excepcions, fins i tot en períodes d’emergència pública" com, per exemple, una guerra. Això és un desenvolupament revolucionari i absolutament increïble.

European whistle-blowers policy, Andreasen v 27 EU Member States, 28827/11

The Catalan language is lower

No doubt, Marta ANDREASEN is the most famous whistle-blower in Europe. On 01/01/2002 she became the first EU Chief Accountant with a diploma of an accountant. When she started her functions, very soon she noticed that there was a risk of fraud possibly amounting to € 5 billion. She refused to sign EU financial documents, and in fact for this reason she was fired.

The theoretic problem for EU States was that the national law of all those 27 countries forbade dismissing whistleblowers. However the European law did not. Thus she was dismissed in a manner that was impossible under national law of those 27 States.

It was impossible to sue the European Union, so she sued 27 individual States before the European Court of Human Rights, and I represented her. We lost the case in Strasbourg.

The European Court of Human Rights states that we failed to prove that the EU General Court had not been an equivalent human rights defense mechanism to national human rights mechanisms (§ 70).

This is abuse of deduction. In fact, under national law it is possible to attack dismissal as such, to go in-depth of the facts grounding the dismissal. The situation is absolutely different before the EU General Court. First, there is no such thing as a prohibition on dismissal of whistle-blowers. Second, the EU Courts in Luxembourg do not review the facts grounding the dismissal, and their competence is limited to procedural issues.

Thus, there is no efficient whistleblowers defense mechanism in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human rights refused to look at the problem closer.

After such a response from the Strasbourg Court, there is a possibility of appeal to United Nations.

-----

CATALÀ

Sens dubte, Marta Andreasen és la delatora més famosa d’Europa. L’1 de gener del 2002 es va convertir en la primera Cap de Comptabilitat de la UE amb el diploma de comptable. Quan va començar les seves funcions, molt aviat va adonar-se que hi havia un gran risc de frau, possiblement fins a 5 bilions d’euros. Ella va negar-se a signar els documents financers de la UE i per aquesta raó va ser acomiadada.

El problema teòric que tenien els Estats de la UE és que la legislació nacional de tots els 27 països prohibia el acomiadaments dels delators. Per contra, la legislació europea no ho feia. D’aquesta manera, sota la legislació nacional dels 27 Estats, si hi hagués un delator, seria impossible d’acomiadar-lo. Aquesta és una norma que ve de les Nacions Unides.

Era impossible atacar la Unió Europea davant el Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans. Per la qual cosa va atacar els 27 Estats individuals de la UE davant el Tribunal d’Estrasburg, i jo la representava. Hem perdut el cas.

El Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans va declarar fa 5 dies que no vam demostrar que el Tribunal General de la UE no era un mecanisme de defensa dels drets humans equivalent als mecanismes nacionals dels drets humans (§ 70).

Aquest és l'abús de la deducció. De fet, segons el dret nacional és possible atacar l'acomiadament com a tal, per anar al fons dels fets i dels motius de l'acomiadament. La situació és absolutament diferent davant del Tribunal General de la UE. En primer lloc, no hi ha tal cosa com la prohibició d'acomiadament dels delator. En segon lloc, els tribunals de la UE a Luxemburg no revisen els fets i els motius de l'acomiadament, i la seva competència es limita a qüestions de procediment.

Per tant, no existeix un mecanisme eficient de defensa dels delators a Luxemburg, i el Tribunal Europeu dels Drets Humans va negar-se a mirar el problema de prop.

Després d'aquesta resposta del Tribunal d'Estrasburg, hi ha la possibilitat d'apel·lar davant les Nacions Unides.

Suing State for damage by its supreme court before its administrative courts as an exhaustion condition, NML Capital Ltd v France, 23242/12

In 2000 Argentine issued bonds to be paid in 2020 and 2030, but the Republic became bankrupt already in 2001. Argentine signed a Fiscal Agency Agreement providing that it renounced its sovereign immunity as a State, and that in a case of its default at least 25 % of the total amount of debt were immediately payable. Under the Fiscal Agency Agreement the judicial competence was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Deptee company NML Capital from Caiman Islands obtained an order from the latter New York obliging Argentina to refund and compensate $ 284 184 632.30 (§ 7). After this, NML Capital addressed the French Courts in order to arrest the funds of Argentina’s diplomatic missions in Paris.

The French Cassation Court agreed with the validity of the New York judgment, however refused to order arrest of Argentina’s funds in France due to sovereign immunity.

It is quite natural to think that after the Cassation Court you have exhausted all internal remedies, and NML Capital attacked it before the European Court of Human Rights. However on 13/01/2015 the Strasbourg judges decided that NML Capital had to attack the French Republic before the French administrative courts for “breach of equality in terms of public burdens” (“rupture de l'égalité devant les charges publiques”, § 19).

“Breach of equality in terms of public burdens” is a procedure absolutely similar to the Köbler procedure of the EU Court of Justice. It is interesting to note that the European Court of Human Rights already several times interpreted that the Köbler procedure is not a requirement within any obligatory meaning of Strasbourg procedures.

After Strasbourg, there is an appeal open to the UN Human Rights Committee. This UN jurisdiction does not accept complaints from legal persons. It is interesting to know that many UN States do not recognize Caiman Islands companies as legal persons. Could NML Capital act as a natural person then?

“Death words” of the plaintiff killing his tax case, Cañada Mora v Spain, 2070/2011

Spanish wine producer José Antonio Cañada Mora was attacked by tax authorities imposing on him a tax debt of € 481 154 for periods from 1992 to 1996 (§ 2.1). There were chances to avoid loosing the money, since the debts for 1992 and 1993 had expired pursuant to the legal statute of limitations, and a substantial part of evidence, i.e. copies not supported by originals, filed by tax authorities had been declared inadmissible (§ 2.2).

On 14/03/2005 Cañada Mora filed an application for amparo (legal protection) before the Spanish Constitutional Court, however his case was still pending before the lower Supreme Court. On 01/04/2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation, since its value taken separately for each quarter was less than € 150 258 (§ 2.8).

On 25/04/2005 Cañada Mora second time applied for amparo before the Constitutional Court, and the application contained the words that he “reiterate[d] the application for amparo that was lodged on 14/03/2005” (§ 2.9).

These words became death words. The Constitutional Court merged the second application with the first one, took into consideration the date of 14/03/2005, and on that ground declared it inadmissible (proceedings still pending before a lower court, § 2.10).

The European Court of Human Rights supported the Spanish judges (§ 2.11), and Cañada Mora appealed before the UN Human Rights Committee.

The UN Committee answered that it does not follow from the death words that the purpose of Cañada Mora was to submit a second request for amparo separate from 14/03/2005 (§ 4.3).

Happy New Year! 2015 - my blog is back.

After a year brеак and being amused that my blog reached several thousand visitors per day, I restart posting. Among the most wonderful things of 2014 I'd mention:

1. I won the case of impeached President of Rolandas PAKSAS of Lithuania before the United Nations on 25/03/2014.
2. I got the title of full professor of law for life in Moscow and in Almaty.
3. I learned that there are three kinds of responses from the UN Human Rights Committee during the first stage of litigation:

• your complaint is dismissed and please forget own address;
• your complaint is dismissed and these are reasons (take a chance to explain it once again if you believe you are right);
• please provide additional information (and then wait for at least 6 months);
• we communicate your case to the respondent Government.

Oh, year - my blog will be in three languages: English, Lithuanian and Russian - discovering new markets, guys.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIETUVIŠKAI
Po metų pertraukos, grįžtu prie blogo ir pradedu jį daryti su vertimu į lietuvių kalbą tam, kad Lietuvoje tam tikriems žmonėms būtų blogiau. Tarp žymiausių pasiekimų pernai išskirčiau:

1. Laimėjau Prezidento R. Pakso bylą Jungtinių Tautų Žmogaus teisių komitete. Tą dalį, kurią atmetė Strasbūras – priėmė JTO.
2. Iki gyvos galvos tris kartus gavau teisės profesoriaus vardą Maskvoje ir Almatoje.
3. Atradau, kad būna keturi JTO atsakymai per pirmą bylos etapą:

• Jūsų skundas atmetamas ir pamirškite mūsų adresą;
• Jūsų skundas atmetamas ir štai kodėl (jeigu mes padarėme akivaizdžią klaidą – paaiškink, bet labai trumpai ir aiškiai);
• pateikite papildomą informaciją (o po to laukite mažiausia 6 mėnesius);
• persiunčiame Jūsų skundą Lietuvos Vyriausybei.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ПО-РУССКИ
После годового перерыва возобновляю блог. Так как появились русскоязычные клиенты, буду делать посты и по-русски. Среди достижений 2014 я бы выделил:

1. Выиграл дело отстраненного в результате импичмента Президента Литвы Роландаса ПАКСАСА против Литвы в ООН.
2. До конца жизни трижды получил звание профессора права в Москве и Алматы.
3. Узнал и сразу проклассифицировал, что бывают следующие варианты ответа из ООН на вашу жалобу:

• ваша жалоба отклонена и забудьте наш адрес;
• ваша жалоба отклонена и, вот, причины (попробуй еще, если мы сделали очевидную ошибку, но коротко и ясно);
• пришлите дополнительную информацию;
• шлем вашу жалобу вашему правительству.

В Комитет по правам человека ООН мы можем обжаловать решения Верховных Судов России, Литвы, Казахстана, Киргизии, Белорусии и других стран.