SOME DETAILS
BS TR
Home
SOME DETAILS
Inutility of Courts
Mistake of ECHR (ENGLISH)
Values, prices, costs
The Opposite
Lalic's Black Magic
Text of the message
Page 2

(The English text is below).

 

DETALJNIJE:

      Europski sud za ljudska prava (ECHR) nije  osporavao dokaze o mom stanarskom pravu, koje je od mene primio, nego je potpuno  NEISTINITO  rekao u svojoj odluci (t.j. izmislio!), da sam ja sām naveo u svom zahtjevu (application) da sam bio obican "najmoprimac" ciji je polozaj u stanu "ovisio o volji vlasnika", itd.!!!

   [ ECHR, broj zahtjeva: 43447/98,  Odluka o dopustenosti,  od 16/03/2000  "A. (.....)   Cinjenicno stanje predmeta, kako ga je naveo podnositelj zahtjeva, moze se sazeti kako slijedi: (...........)" ].

    Napomene:  (1) Nitko me ne zastupa  niti me je ikada zastupao pred ECHR, nisam nikoga opunomocio za to, nisam potpisao punomoc. (2) Po Zakonu o najmu stanova (1996.) nositelj stanarskog prava u tzv. "privatnom" stanu treba sklopiti novi ugovor o najmu sa zasticenom najamninom, kojim treba postati "zasticeni najmoprimac". Ipak, ja NISAM sklopio ni potpisao takav ugovor, jer zelim zauvijek zadrzati moje stanarsko pravo i ne pristajem na gubitak (oduzimanje) mog stanarskog prava.

 

      Nisam clan hrvatskih udruga stanara (t.j. nositelja stanarskog prava), ali sam u kontaktu i izmjenjujem misljenja sa mnogima od njihovih clanova. Neki od njih misle da je sutkinja Europskog suda za ljudska prava  prof. Nina Vajic odgovorna za neispravne odluke tog suda, t.j. da nije mogla biti objektivna ni nepristrana zbog svojih osobnih interesa. Pokazali su mi fotokopije iz kojih se vidi da je i ona sama nominalna vlasnica neuseljivih tzv. "privatnih" stanova  te da je u vrijeme donosenja tih odluka bila u sudskom sporu sa nositeljima stanarskog prava.

      Na moja pitanja o neistinama u odluci tog Suda, koja sam joj postavio direktno u pismima poslanim postom (preporuceno)  te indirektno, putem HHO-a,  nisam od nje nikada dobio odgovor. Te neistine su za mene stetne ili mogu biti stetne, jer bi neke osobe mogle citirati neistine iz te odluke Suda u svom protuzakonitom nastojanju da nanesu stetu meni i mojoj obitelji.  Oni koji su pisali tu odluku moraju reci  od  koga  su dobili  neistinite  podatke, zasto su  neistinito napisali da sam te podatke ja naveo u svojoj  tuzbi, itd.

      Na iste neistine i neispravnosti upozorio sam i u drugim pismima Sudu i ostalim sucima iz istog sudskog vijeca, kao i u pismima Vladi, Ministarstvu pravosudja, Predsjedniku Republike Mesicu, policiji, i drugima, te u pismima predsjedniku Suda gospodinu Luzius-u Wildhaber-u. Od vecine  nisam dobio nikakav odgovor. Pisma sam slao predsjedniku Luziusu Wildhaberu  osobno postom (preporuceno) te e-mailom putem druge vodece osobe istog Suda, tako da nema sumnje da su moja pisma morala stici njemu kao i ostalima. Ali, od njega nisam dobio odgovor.

      Kad bi neistine bile unesene u odluku Suda nehoticnom pogreskom, one bi bile odavno ispravljene, nakon mojih upozorenja. Prema tome, ne znam sto bih drugo mogao zakljuciti, nego da se mozda radi o svjesnim, namjernim obmanama i klevetama od strane nekih pojedinaca, a mozda i o sudjelovanju u eventualnom pokusaju prevare.

        Neki clanovi udruga nositelja stanarskog prava informirali su me o cinjenici da se odluke Europskog suda za ljudska prava nalaze i na web-stranicama Vlade RH, tj. da i Vlada RH takodjer na taj nacin (mozda nesvjesno) sudjeluje u pronosenju i sirenju neistina koje se nalaze u odluci Suda, odnosno u spomenutom obmanjivanju i sl.

      Ponovno trazim od Europskog suda za ljudska prava, od Drzavnog odvjetnistva RH, Vlade, i svih ostalih, da se istrazi i utvrdi kako su neistine dospjele u odluku Suda,  ali  NAJVAZNIJE  je  da se neistine  ISPRAVE,  t.j. da se zamijene istinom, kako od strane tog Suda tako i od strane Vlade RH.

http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id4.html

http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/

      Povratak na:

Inutility of Courts

Vidi pismo sudu (ECHR) od III. 2004.!

SOME  DETAILS:

       The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) did not contest the proofs of my tenantship right (that the Court had received), but it said quite UNTRULY, FALSELY, in its decision, that I, in my application, had declared myself to have been a "lessee" whose position "was dependent on the will of the owner", etc.!!!  

   [ ECHR, Application no. 43447/98,  Decision as to the admissibility,  16/03/2000  -  "A. (.....)  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:  (..........)" ]. 

      Note: (1) Nobody represents me  or ever represented me  before the ECHR, I have not appointed any representative, I have not signed any such form of authority. (2) By the Law on Renting Apartments (1996), a tenantship-right holder in a so-called "private" apartment should make a new contract by which he should become a "protected lease-holder" (and should pay a limited rent). Still,  I have NOT made or signed such a contract, because I want to keep my tenantship right forever and I do not agree to lose it or to be deprived of it.

 

      I am not a member of Croatian organizations of  tenantship-right holders, but I am in contact with them and I consult many of their members. Some of them think that the judge of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)  Prof. Nina Vajic  is responsible for the incorrectness of the Court's decisions,  i.e.  that she could not have been objective or impartial because of her personal interests. They showed me photocopies from which it is evident that she herself is also a nominal owner of occupied  so-called "private" apartments, and at the time of making those decisions she was engaged in court proceedings against the tenantship-right holders living in those apartments.

      I have put questions to her about the untruths in the Court's decision, both directly, in letters that I sent to her by post (registered mail), and indirectly, through the CHC (Croatian Helsinki Committee), but I never received any reply.  Those who wrote that decision must say who gave them the untrue information, why they wrote untruly that I had presented such data in my application, etc.

      Those untruths are harmful to me  or can be harmful, because some persons could cite the untruths contained in the Court's decision in their illegal attempts to damage me and my family.

      I drew the Court's attention to the same untruths and incorrectness by sending other letters to the Court, to the other judges in the same Court's council, to the Cabinet, the Ministry of Justice, the President of the Republic, the police, and others,  and I also sent letters to the President of the ECHR Mr. Luzius Wildhaber.  I received no reply to most of these letters.  I sent those letters to President Luzius Wildhaber personally, by registered mail, and also by e-mail, through another leading person of the same Court.  So there is no doubt that my letters must have reached him as well as the others. But, I received no reply from him.

.     If the untruths had been put into the Court's decision by an unintentional mistake, they would have been corrected long ago, after my warnings about them. So, I don't know what a conclusion I could draw, other than concluding that intentional deceits or slanders, or even a fraud, are perhaps attempted by some individuals.

      Some members of tenantship-right-holders' organizations have informed me about the fact that the decisions of the ECHR are also displayed at the Croatian-Cabinet's web-site, which means that the Cabinet (government) takes part (perhaps unconsciously) in spreading the untruths contained in the Court's (ECHR's) decision, which amounts to taking part (unconsciously) in the above-mentioned possible deceit, etc.

      I again request that the ECHR, the Croatian-Public-Prosecutor's Office, the Cabinet, and all the others, investigate and find out how the untruths have got into the Court's decision;  but  it  is  MOST  IMPORTANT  to  CORRECT  the untruths,  i.e. to replace them by the truth, which should be done by the Court  as well as the Croatian Cabinet (government)

http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id4.html

http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/

   Return to:

See the letter to ECHR of March, 2004 !