|
||||
|
||||
| Date & Link |
—
|
Title/Description & Links | ||
|
|
||||
| 10.10.1947
- 10.03.1948 |
|
TRIAL OF ULRICH GREIFELT AND OTHERS AT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NUEREMBERG. In these proceedings against Ulrich Greifelt and others, leading SS-members from the group around Heinrich Himmler have been condemned due to crimes against humanity among others on account of child abduction.The judgments of the Nueremberg Trials clearly identify child abduction and alienation as a Crime against Humanity. In the first quarter of the 20th century the Nazis conducted a state run child abduction and alienation program as part of the Germanisation plan. As a result, and after nearly two years of study, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted on 9th December, 1948, a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group, as such : [...] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. In the last quarter of the 20th century the German government does not prosecute those German judicial, social and administrative German state authorities and officials which are involved in legalizing international child abduction to Germany. Thereby the German government refuses to make the responsible German state servants assume responsibilites for Crimes against Humanity. Thereby the German government refuses to install and provide an effective qualtiy assurance and control. Thereby the German government refuses to assume itself its responsibilties which results in the documented continious historical wrongdoing in the German history of child abduction and boycott of access. | ||
|
|
||||
| Dezember 1977 | 
|
An interdisciplinary research and study has been effected on the "Well-Being of the Child within the Practice of German Family Law Jurisdiction" from 1973 until 1977. The conclusive report in 1977 and the respective publication in 1979 present as results the identification of deficiencies of the German family law system and of German family law proceedings which are about thirty years later still the same structural problems within the practice German family law jurisdiction, while the official propaganda of the German government and the competent and responsible federal ministries is still trying to sell something else to the peace in the world and to the unified Europe. Furthermore, about thirty years later, the German government in its moral and political responsibility is taking concrete action not to bring about consequent change of the German family law system and German family law proceedings but is taking concrete action to madly and fiercly defend the incorrect German proceedings and its clearly executed Human Rights violations. | ||
|
|
||||
| November 1995 | 
|
The Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. At the hearing in Geneva in November 1995, the Committee identified positive factors, but also "general topics which give rise to concern", as well as formulating "proposals and recommendations". | ||
|
|
||||
| 1996 |
|
In 1996, on the conference in Bad Boll the German social state authority "Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)" justifies itself of not being a "Kidnapping Office (Wir sind doch keine Kinderklaubehörde)". Curiously, the Jugendamt authority is also involved as documented in the disrespect and violation of international law, children rights and human rights. | ||
|
|
||||
| 1996 |
|
In 1996, Richard von Weizaecker, Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany says : The respect of Rights is the basic guidelines of our social order. Also, every child has its own rights,from birth on and everywhere in the world. The respect of the Rights of the Child is a measurement for the culture of a society. | ||
|
|
||||
| February 1997 |
|
Herta Daeubler-Gmelin knows very well the characteristics of the German political judiciary and the treatment of the victims by the politicians' and jurists' class as she has worked on this issue with the example of the Nazi-jurists and speaks out against it in public when it serves her political career on the way to become German federal justice minister. But in respect to the injustice judiciary of German family law jurisdiction under her responsibility as German federal minister of justice, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin intentionally covers and promotes German judiciary crimes against humanity. While Herta Daeubler-Gmelin out of her political opportunism still complains about the delay of proceedings and the lack of protection of the victims in respect to the lack assumption of responsibility for crimes committed by Nazi-jurists, the German federal minister of justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin refuses the assumption of responsibility for the intentional delay of proceedings and further incorrect proceedings by German famliy judges, but refuses the protection of the victims of German family law jurisdiction. Whereas Herta Daeubler-Gmelin portrays herself as the perfect angel of humanity speaking out against German Judiciary Crimes against Humanity on the way of her ascension to the Walhalla position as German federal minister of justice, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin will later on as German federal minister of justice vetoes against the European court of Human Rights in order to cover and defend German Judiciary Crimes against Humanity in 2002. | ||
|
|
||||
| 18-20 May 1997 |
|
Anglo-German judicial conference,Dartington. The Federal Republic of Germany has very obviously and in contrast to other countries more cases in which a child is held in Germany than returns of the child according to the Hague Convention are executed. The court proceedings take multiple times longer than in Great Britain. German judges have little or nearly no experience in the application of international conventions and laws, which is reflected in the processing of international child abductions. This corresponds to the German self-image, that every judge is completely independant. There is hope that the jurisdiction of the Federal constitutional court, which decides as the last instance if a child has to be returned and which has shown a high competence in its decisions. A German Law Professor, Dr. Salgo, said that the sooner the German family justice system was reformed, the less likelihood of some parents wanting to take the law in their hands. | ||
|
|
||||
| September 1997 |
|
Two German fathers on hunger strike in front of the family court Berlin, Tempelhof-Kreuzberg. | ||
|
|
||||
| 11 September 1997 |
|
Journal Officiel, 11.9.1997,
French Republic Nr. 762 – Answer of the French Foreign
minister to the parliamentary question : Germany – French
children – custody and access. Excerpts : Gova, member of the French parliament, asks the French foreign minister to take a stance about the French children abducted to Germany and arbitrarily withheld in Germany whereas the French left-behind parents have severe difficulties to obtain access and custody rights. Already in January 1997 some members of parliament had accompanied a delegation of parents to the German embassy in France. They were neither received nor heard. Obviously German helds a position which violates the International Human Rights and the European Convention, which Germany has ratified. Answer of the French Foreign Minister : France and Germany are signatory states of the Hague Convention from 25 October 1980 on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which is destined to make the return to the habitual residence possible. It is correct, that repeatedly die German independant justice has made the application of this convention ineffective by overuse of article 13. France and Germany are also signatory states of the European Convention of 20 Mai 1980. The reason of the difficulties is that the application is based on the independant judirisdiction of the competent courts. For France the justice minister is responsible for the application of these two conventions who has drawn repeatedly the attention of his German counterpart on this situation. These interventions were supported by the foreign minister and diplomatic and consulate authorites. We have to admit that these interventions had scarcely success until now. |
||
|
|
||||
| 20 September 1997 |
|
International Demonstration in front of the German Embassy in Paris, France, initiated by French and German organisations against the violation of children rights by German state authorities. | ||
|
|
||||
| 23 Mai 1998 |
|
UN-petition (98610) of Kehler. Urgent claim. Complaint vs. EU, council of europe, decision no. 38012/97; Complaint vs. Germany and Decision: (BVerfG 1BvR 540/98) Applicant claims to involve EU court. | ||
|
|
||||
| 15-16 September 1998 |
|
International Forum on international child abduction : Hague Convention Action Agenda - Germany is critized for undue delays in proccedings and in determining applications. | ||
|
|
||||
| December 1998 |
|
French president Jacques Chirac calls the German proceedings in Child Abduction "law of the jungle" |
||
|
|
||||
| January 1999 |
|
UN-complaint (G/SO 215/51 GERM. GEN) of Zayas against the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of Aurich, East Frisia, Germany. | ||
|
|
||||
| 5 April 1999 |
|
The German government does not respect the deadline for submission of the 2nd state report which is to be submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the measures which they have adopted to give effect to the rights recognised in this Convention and to present the progress made in this context. | ||
|
|
||||
| 22 May 1999 |
|
The report "Germany in conflict with the Rights of the Child" to the United Nations Center for Human Rights, Committee on the Rights of the Child Review of Germany's Report on the Convention on the Rights of the child on 22 May 1999 by Joseph R. Howard Director of Affairs for Germany P.A.R.E.N.T. | ||
|
|
||||
| 14 October 1999 |
|
Lady Catherine Meyer reports on the subject matter of child abduction to Germany during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relation and about the arbritary procedings of the German courts, e.g. the Higher Regional Court of Celle. | ||
|
|
||||
| 27 October 1999 |
|
Lady Catherine Meyer reports on the subject matter of International Child Abduction for a hearing of the Senate Judicial Committee. | ||
|
|
||||
| November 1999 |
|
Pierre Cardo, member of French parliament, hands over a letter to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to draw his attention to the systematic refusal of the German judiciary to order the immediate return of children abducted to Germany to the blocking strategy of the German judiciary in the matter of organizing contact between the child withheld in Germany and the French left-behind parent by violating the UN-CRC. | ||
|
|
||||
| 1999 |
|
US-report on compliance with the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. As requested under Section 2803(a)(2), the following is a list of countries to which children for whom there are unresolved applications are alleged to have been abducted. Germany is listed as well. | ||
|
|
||||
| 2000 |
|
Lebensborn: from Inception to the New Millennium Germanization
of Abducted Children Alienation & Estrangement, by Maureen
Dabbagh, author Recovery of Internationally Abducted Children |
||
|
|
||||
| 23 March 2000 |
|
Resolution of the US-Senate criticizes German disrespect and violation of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (S. Con. Res. 98). Urging compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Germany is critized for violating The Hague Convention. | ||
|
|
||||
| 23/24 May 2000 |
|
Resolution of the US-House of Representatives criticizes German disrespect and violation of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (106th congress, 2d session, H. CON. RES. 293). Urging compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Germany is critized for violating The Hague Convention. | ||
|
|
||||
| 2 June 2000 |
|
US-senator Mike DeWine engages in Statements on the floor of the US senate. He refers to the argument of the German officials who have repeatedly blamed the German their non-compliance wtih international conventions on the independence of their judiciary system. | ||
|
|
||||
| 3-6 June 2000 |
|
Judges'
Seminar on the International Protection of Children.
On the initiative of the French and German Ministers of Justice,
a Judges' Seminar on International Protection of Children
was held at the Conference Centre De Ruwenberg, near 's-Hertogenbosch
with the support of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference
on private international law. Twelve judges from France,
twelve from Germany, seven from Italy and six from the Netherlands
engaged in intensive discussions on the application of the
international instruments concerned with the protection of
children, in particular the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. (The judges unanimously adopted the following conclusions...) (Die Richter verabschiedeten einstimming die folgende Konklusion...) |
||
|
|
||||
| 6 June 2000 |
|
For the first time in ten years sincs the ratification of the Hague Convention 28 by Germany, a German Minister of Justice, here Madam Professor Dr Herta Däubler-Gmelin, visits the Permanent Bureau of the Secretariat of the Hague Conference. Among the topics discussed were the results of the Judges' Seminar on the International Protection of Children, which had just been held from 3-6 June 2000. | ||
|
|
||||
| Summer 2000 |
|
US-President Bill Clinton visits Germany and addresses German chancellor Schroeder about the subject of Child Abduction and boycott of access with children brought and withheld in Germany | ||
|
|
||||
| June 2000 |
|
US-State Departement criticizes German Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) Tuttlingen because of reducing the visitation rights of a US-grandmother to her grand-children abducted to Germany in reaction to her public criticizm in the media against the incorrect proceedings of the German authorities. Although the US-father Cooke has the custodian rights according to a US court, the German Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe refuses a return of the children and is backing up the behavior and proceedings of the German Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt), whereas the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe is the appeal instance of the German Central Authority with the German Federal Prosecutor General at the German Federal Court of Justice, which is competent and responsible for the implementation of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in Germany. | ||
|
|
||||
| 3 July 2000 |
|
Pierre Cardo, member of French
parliament and member of French-German
mediatior group with the Task Force for Settlement
of International Conflicts in Child Affairs at the German
federal ministry of Justice critizes the destructive work
and proceedings of the German member of parliaments and mediators
and the blokcing of proceedings by the German federal ministry
of Justice. (Communiqué de Presse) (Pressemitteilung) |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case
of Elsholz v. Germany (Application no. 25735/94); Strasbourg;
violation of Articles 6 (right to fair trial), Article
8 (respect for family life) of the European Convention for
the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights;
Refusal to grant father access to child born out of wedlock
(Art. 8) [violation], Failure to obtain expert opinion and
failure to hold hearing on appeal (Art. 6 § 1)[violation]
|
|||
|
|
||||
| 2000 |
|
US-report on compliance with the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Listed among the countries that are not fully compliant is Germany. There has been a lack of understanding among the German judiciary about the Convention, and a reluctance in the German Central Authority to provide the judiciary with explanatory materials about effective implementation of the Convention. In a number of cases in Germany there has been an unconscionably broad use of the Convention's exceptions to return. The central point of the Convention is that it is the country of habitual residence, not the country to which the child has been abducted, that is the appropriate venue to make a judgment about the child's best interests and custody. In access proceedings under Article 21 of the Convention, some German court orders do not provide for children to have a meaningful relationship with both their parents and both their cultures. Access is sometimes limited and conditioned to the point of causing emotional stress to both parents and children. Even when the courts issue access orders, the systemic failure to enforce contempt of court sanctions allows abducting parents to resist enforcement of orders indefinitely. | ||
|
|
||||
| 2000-2001 |
|
Although the German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is exactly informed about the wrongdoing and the miscarriage of the German political judiciary and although the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is in accordance with Art. 65 of the German constitution responsible for the general policy guidelines, the German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder refuses measures for correction and assumption of responsibilities. While the political leader style of the German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder repeatedly resorts to call for a vote of confidence in the German federal parliament, the German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder renounces on calling for a vote of confidence in respect of the subject matter of disrespect and violation of children rights and human rights by the German judiciary. The German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder reacts with the pseudo argument of the independence of German judges enshrined within the German constitution. The German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder does deliberately not state that independent German judges have intentionally supported and promoted under a German constitution Adolf Hitler, national socialism, WW II and the resulting Crimes against Humanity out of own political and power interests. | ||
|
|
||||
| 2000-2001 |
|
Also the German federal minister of justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin uses the pseudo argument of the independence of the judiciary if it is about assuming responsibilities for German judiciary crimes against Humanity. Whereas the German federal minister of justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin at this period of time promises to the international community in accordance with the guidelines for the German government's official propaganda to speed up German family law proceedings on custody and access, the very same German federal minister of justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin will veto against the European Court of Human Rights in order to cover incorrect proceedings by the practice of German family law jurisdiction and in order to enforce of the socio- and legal policy aims of the German government under the responsibility of the German federal chancellor Gerhard Chancellor. Three years later in 2003, the successor of Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, i.e. German federal minister of justice Brigitte Zypries will still stick to the official propaganda guideline of the German government that speeding up family law court proceedings would be welcomed. | ||
|
|
||||
| January 2001 |
|
The German judge Gerhard Hohloch from the higher regional court of Freiburg states that last year, the German family courts would have been without reasoning and in an unjustified manner accused in public and in politics that they would not work correctly in child abduction cases. | ||
|
|
||||
| 10 April 2001 |
|
The United States General Accounting Office reports to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate on the subject of Foreign Affairs and Changes to Germany's Implementation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Germany’s initiatives to enhance judicial expertise and accelerate case processing are steps that have potential to positively affect German application of the provisions of the Hague Convention and reduce the time taken to adjudicate cases. In response to U.S. and other countries’ concerns, German authorities have pledged their commitment to take steps to improve the handling of Hague Convention cases, and Germany has taken actions to address two of the three primary criticisms. Germany has established a task force to monitor German reforms and active cases, initiated efforts to build expertise among judges deciding Hague Convention cases, and changed its processes to accelerate case handling. Because the reforms are recent, there are only a limited number of cases to demonstrate the actual effect of the initiatives. Germany has not acted, however, to improve its enforcement of visitation orders. This is a key concern of the State Department. Moreover, we believe that the failure to address the German courts’ reluctance to enforce visitation orders could undermine Germany’s efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases. |
||
|
|
||||
| Summer 2001 |
|
International demonstration and international hunger strike of parents and grandparents in Berlin protests against the German proceedings in Child Abduction and Boycott of Access in the East Berlin center on Alexanderplatz. During the hunger strike a collection of case studies on Crimes against Humanity committed by the practice of German family law jurisdiction is handed over to the German federal ministry of justice. | ||
|
|
||||
| 9 July 2001 |
|
The board of directors of the German political party in power, i.e. the social democrats, which is competent and responsible on the government level with the German federal chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the German federal family minister Christine Bergmann and the German federal justice minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin for the general family policy guidelines and the general family law policy guidelines publishes the family policy motion for the orientation under the title "Children - Family - Future" in respect to their socio-political aims and states that social democrats' family policy is oriented on the needs of humans and that children would be the centerpoint of all interests. | ||
|
|
||||
| 11
July & 17 July 2001 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
| 2 August 2001 |
|
The delegation of parents of the Berlin international hunger strike is received by a delegation of the German federal ministry of justice near the Brandenburger Tor in East Berlin and on the extension of the Straße des 17. Juni, which has been named in memorial of the riot against the totalitarian GDR-regime. | ||
|
|
||||
| 10 September 2001 |
|
UN-complaint (G/SO 215/51 GERM. GEN) of Hickman against the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven, East Frisia, Lower Saxony, Germany. | ||
|
|
||||
| 20 September 2001 |
|
Admissibility decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Süss v. Germany (Application no. 40324/98); Strasbourg; violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights by German family law proceedings on access | ||
|
|
||||
|
11 October 2001 |
|
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Sommerfeld v. Germany (Application no. 31871/96); Strasbourg; violation of Articles 6 (right to fair trial), Article 8 (respect for family life),14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights; Refusal to grant father access to child born out of wedlock (Art. 8) [violation], Discrimination between natural fathers and divorced fathers (Art. 14+8) [violation] Access to court - absence of appeal (Art. 6 § 1) [violation] | ||
|
|
||||
| 11 October 2001 |
|
Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case
of Sahin v. Germany (Application no. 30943/96); Strasbourg;
violation of Articles 6 (right to fair trial), Article 8 (respect
for family life),14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the
European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms
and Human Rights; Refusal to grant father access to child born
out of wedlock (Art. 8) [violation], Discrimination between
natural fathers and divorced fathers (Art. 14+8) [violation] (Urteil in der Rechtssache Sahin gegen Deutschland) |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case
of Hoffman v. Germany (Application no. 34045/96); Strasbourg;
violation of Articles 6 (right to fair trial), Article
8 (respect for family life) taken together with 14 (prohibition
of discrimination) of the European Convention for the Protection
of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights; Discrimination
between natural fathers and divorced fathers (Art. 14+8) [violation],
Access to court - absence of appeal (Art. 6 § 1) [violation] |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case
of Kutzner vs. Germany (Application no. 46544/99); Strasbourg;
violation of Article 8 (respect for family life) of the European
Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and
Human Rights; respect for familylife; interference (Art.8)
; positive obligations; protection of health (Art.8); protection
of morals (Art.8); protection of the rights and freedoms of
others (Art.8); margin of appreciation; proportionality; necessary
in a democratic society (Art.8) (Pressemitteilung) (L'arrêt dans l'Affaire Kutzner c. Allemagne) |
||
|
|
||||
| 13 March 2002 |
|
Speech by Mary Banotti in the EU Parliament : In Germany, believed by most people who work in this area to be the country where most of these difficulties exist ... | ||
|
|
||||
| 13 March 2002 |
|
Speech by Michael Cashman in the EU Parliament : The left-behind parent has been denied access to his child ever since his German wife returned to Germany with the child following their divorce ... | ||
|
|
||||
| Summer 2002 |
|
International demonstration and international hunger strike of parents in Berlin protests against the German proceedings in Child Abduction and Boycott of Access in the West Berlin center on Breidscheidtplatz. During the hunger strike a collection of case studies on Crimes against Humanity committed by the practice of German family law jurisdiction is handed over to the German federal ministry of justice. | ||
|
|
||||
| 3 June 2002 |
|
during the assembly of the European Parliament on "International Child Abduction by one Parent", Germany is mentioned due to violations of international conventions on child abduction. The hungerstrikes by parents protesting against the proceedings of the German authorities are also mentioned. | ||
|
|
||||
| 11 June 2002 |
|
The German
Federal Minister of Justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin and
the German
Federal Ministry of Justice deliberately refuse to
take an official stance in front of a TV-camera within the
broadcasting "Father's without rights" on the subject matter
of the incorrect proceedings in German family law matters,
of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against
the incorrect proceedings in German family law matters, and
of the veto-strategy of the German government against the European
Court of Human Rights. Herta Daeubler-Gmelin out of her political opportunism still complains about the delay of proceedings and the lack of protection of the victims in respect to the lack assumption of responsibility for German judiciary crimes and uses this as her socio-political engagement in public in Feburary 1997, but curiously once Herta Daeubler-Gmelin has become the German federal minister of Justice, she is not interested at all to present herself in socio-political engagement in public on the subject matter of German judiciary crimes against humanity under her reign. |
||
|
|
||||
| 11 June 2002 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
| 26 June 2002 |
|
international demonstration of grandparents and fathers in front of the Human Rights Palais in Strassburg, France against the German proceedings in Child Abduction and Boycott of Access | ||
|
|
||||
| 6 July 2002 |
|
solidarity demonstration for the international hunger strike of parents in Berlin in front of the German Federal Court of Justice, Karlsruhe | ||
|
|
||||
| 10 July 2002 |
|
The Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament declares the petition 24/2002 on "Child Abuse and Human Rights violations by German authorities" admissible in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, insofar as its subject matter falls within the sphere of the European Union and forwards 24/2002 to the Committee on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home affairs | ||
|
|
||||
| 12 July 2002 |
|
The deutsche presseagentur
announces that the European
Court of Human Rights has rejected the veto of the German
government in the case of Kutzner vs. Germany (dpa-Meldung) |
||
|
|
||||
| 14 July 2002 |
|
Ending of international hunger strike of parents in Berlin and protest march of discriminated parents and grandparents to the German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. |
||
|
|
||||
|
14-15 July 2002 |
|
vigil for children rights and human rights of a delegation of victims of the German family law jurisdiction in front of the German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth | ||
|
|
||||
| 15 July 2002 |
|
German federal family minister Christine Bergmann receives a delegation of the victims of German family law jurisdiction and refuses to inaugurate an touring exhibition on the "Documentation of the victims of German family law jurisdiction" in the German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth |
||
|
|
||||
| 3 August - 8 September 2002 |
|
protest march of discriminated fathers from Bavaria to Berlin |
||
|
|
||||
| 30 July 2002 |
|
The Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid of the German Bundestag refuses to inaugurate a permanent exhibition on "The victims of German family law jurisdiction" in the German Reichstag |
||
|
|
||||
|
9 August 2002 |
|
international demonstration of grandparents and fathers in front of the Human Rights Palais in Strassburg, France protesting against the German proceedings in Child Abduction and Boycott of Access |
||
|
|
||||
| 2002 |
|
State report on Germany Practice of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction | ||
|
|
||||
| 2002 |
|
The German
federal minister of justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin does
not only cover wrongdoing and miscarriage of justice but tries
to push them through against the human rights concepts of the
international community. The German government under Gerhard
Schroeder and Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, which has come to power
with the election campaign slogan "There is also the human way...,"
borrowed from the nobel peace prize winner Willy Brandt, has
no scruples at all to veto against the European Court of Human
Rights in order to enforce of their socio- and legal policy
aims. Curiously, the German federal justice minister who is
so concerned about the independence of German judges as she
expresses in 2000
and 2001, has definite problems to accept the independence
of European judges. Whereas Herta Daeubler-Gmelin had portrayed herself in 1997 as the perfect angel of humanity speaking out against German Judiciary Crimes against Humanity on the way of her ascension to the position as German federal minister of justice, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin now arrived in Walhalla as German federal minister of justice vetoes against the European court of Human Rights in order to cover and defend German Judiciary Crimes against Humanity. |
||
|
|
||||
| 1998-2002 |
|
innumerous initiatives and petitions by organizations and individuals to change German family law jurisdiction in matters of custody and access during this legislature period |
||
|
|
||||
| 1998-2002 |
|
six decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for violations of the European Convention of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights in German family law matters during this legislature period |
||
|
|
||||
| 23 January 2003 |
|
Admissiblitiy decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Haase vs. Germany (Application no. 11057/02) for alleged violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights |
||
|
|
||||
| 27 February 2003 |
|
Judgment of the of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Niederböster vs. Germany; Strasbourg; violation of Article 6 (right to fair trial) of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights; undue delay of proceedings at the highest German court, i.e. the German federal constitutional court, in access proceedings |
||
|
|
||||
| 15 Mai 2003 |
|
Convention on contact concerning children, Council of Europe, Strasbourg |
||
|
|
||||
| 26 Mai 2003 |
|
Report : The State-Run Child Abuse Machinery "Made in Germany" A definite contradiction to The Report of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 1, letter (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child published by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth or Speaking out against Human Rights Violations by an Abusive State System on 26 Mai 2003 by Bernd Michael Uhl | ||
|
|
||||
| Summer 2003 |
|
demonstration of grandparents and parents in Berlin protesting against the practice in German family law jurisdiction |
||
|
|
||||
| 8 July 2003 |
|
Judgment
of the Grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
in the Cases of Sahin vs. Germany (Application no. 30943/96)
and Sommerfeld vs. Germany (Application no. 31871/96) Strasbourg;
violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)
taken together with Article 8 (respect for family life)
of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental
Freedoms and Human Rights |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
Joint
Franco-German declaration on the event of the Council
of the Justice Ministers of the European Union in respect
to legal security in custody and access proceedings. While
the German
federal justice minister Brigitte Zypries engages
in the usual official propaganda show of the German government
like her predecessor Herta Dauebler-Gmelin with the official
statement that expeditious court proceedings would be welcomed
and that they certainely would work against child abduction,
the German federal justice minister Brigitte Zypries as
well as the German federal justice minister Herta Dauebler-Gmelin
is deliberately covering Crimes against Humanity comitted
by German family judges although the incorrect behaviors
and proceedings in German family jurisdiction are well known for
more than a decade. Until today not one of the responsible German
jurists has been made assuming his responsibilities by his
German jurist colleagues or by the competent and responsible
German politicians - just like in the good old Nazi-jurist
times with writing "Persilscheine." |
|||
|
|
||||
| 6 November 2003 |
|
The
United Nations' Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
deals in its seventy-ninth session with the complaint of an
Irish father discriminated in custody and access matter within
German family court proceedings. |
||
|
|
||||
|
| ||||
