Overview :
German history of child abduction & boycott of access
|
|
Short Chronicle on the German history
- of international and innerstate child abduction/boycott
of access
- of violations of Children Rights and Human
Rights
in German family law matters
- of the leitkultur of human rights violations
by German judicial, social and
administrative state authorities
- of the dramatic discrepancy between official
propaganda and social reality
- socio-policy and legal policy processes and
protagonist
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
13
July 2000
|
|
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]
(Communiqué
de presse)
(Urteil
in der Rechtssache Elsholz gegen Deutschland)
|
|
| 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 |
|
House
of Commons Hansard Debatte in the United Kindgom Parliament
on the isssue of international child abduction.
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
11
October 2001
|
|
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]
(Urteil
in der Rechtssache Hoffman gegen Deutschland)
|
|
|
26
February 2002
|
|
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 |
|
House
of Commons Hansard Debatte in the United Kindgom Parliament
on the isssue of international child abduction.
|
|
| 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
(press
release)
(Urteil
in der Rechtssache Sahin gegen Deutschland)
(Urteil
in der Rechtssache Sommerfeld gegen Deutschland)
|
|
|
3
October 2003
|
|
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."
Already
three years ago in 2000, the German
federal justice minister Herta Dauebler-Gmelin had
promised to the international community to speed up court
proceedings.
Curiously, the German federal justice minister Brigitte
Zypries does not explain how the attitude of the German
government vetoing against the European Court of Human Rights
in order to cover incorrect proceedings by the practice
of German family law jurisdiction matches the statements
in her official propaganda.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
20-22
November 2003
|
|