Counter-Propaganda.com

Applications to the European Court of Human Rights and letter to EU-dreamers

22 11 2013

I must refer to the ECHR as a last resort because the courts of the Republic of Lithuania refuse to defend the rights of Lithuanians. We are humiliated in our own country, turned by the EU into a mere instrument for destroing our nation.

Today I have sent two applications to the European Court of Human Rights and a letter to those Europeans whose countries are seeking a closer integration with the European Union. I have also informed several hundred of European media outlets about this.

The police made me into an amateur lawyer

In the middle of the Summer of 2012, I was informed by the Lithuanian police that they had started a criminal case against me and that I was suspected of having written an internet comment blaming the so-called hierarchs of the Catholic Church of Lithuania for their insatiable greediness – later I found out that the case was initiated by the Chaplain of the Lithuanian Police Aušvydas Belickas, who had even ‘convinced’ his subordinates to give him the formal status of a crime victim.

After an initial minor shock (it was the first time when I was declared suspect in a criminal case), there started a process that later turned into a weird kind of game with police investigators, prosecutors and courts. The case was rapidly terminated when I started my legal offensive against the Prosecution Office of Lithuania, which, by the by, has a poor reputation among Lithuanians.

We, Lithuanians, are being brazenly discriminated in our own country

During my legal games with the police, I accidentally became aware of a really awful thing – knowing Lithuanian language was enough for suspending a person’s right to get a state-paid counsel in the criminal cases in which the maximum possible punishment did not exceed 3 years in jail.

It made me furious – I began considering the Republic of Lithuania to be an enemy of the Lithuanian nation, adopted the motto ‘Lithuania – for Lithuanians’ and started trying to bring the case to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania.

However, I realised soon that all the rule of law in my country in fact was limited to pure procedures. Lithuanian courts accepted my legal actions, I took part at a couple of hearings, but they brazenly refused to implement substantial laws, including even the most unequivocal articles of the Constitution.

Therefore, I decided to bring my casе to the European Court of Human Rights; however, first I had to pass it through the Lithuanian courts.

A perfect timing for an application to the ECHR

When the Vilnius Regional Court had procrastinated my case for almost half a year, I decided to apply to the ECHR immediately – life is too short for waiting years for every court decision.

As a summit of the so-called Eastern Partnership is starting in Vilnius on the 28th of November, I decided to turn my case into a message to Europeans, a warning of what the EU can make of such a weak and corrupt country as Lithuania.

Therefore, I quickly wrote an application to the ECHR as well as a letter in Russian and English to all those who still see the EU through rose-coloured glasses.

Mostly by means of copy and paste, I wrote another application to the ECHR (that can be found at the very end of this page) and informed all the European media whose email addresses I had of my initiative.

A letter to those who are thinking about joining the European Union

Dear friends,

I have just sent an application to the European Court of Human Rights as a last resort in my attempt to stop discrimination of Lithuanians in the Republic of Lithuania. Knowing the Lithuanian language is now a great disadvantage in Lithuania and is officially used by Lithuanian police, the prosecution, and courts as a legitimate ground for depriving Lithuanians of their basic human rights that are guaranteed to non-Lithuanians and for utter mockery at them. The text of my application to the court can be found on the Internet in English, Lithuanian, and Russian.

The current degrading of us, Lithuanians, to creatures of lowest status in our own homeland is a direct consequence of Lithuania’s membership in the European Union. The EU presses its weakest members to treat other nations as their superiors.

Before the Vilnius Summit of Eastern Partnership, I would like to shed more light on the aspects of Lithuania’s experience in the EU that are usually thoroughly concealed by the official media.

Triumph of corruption

Lithuania’s joining the EU turned corruption into the main principle of the functioning of the state. Most of the internal politics were reoriented to distribute various EU funds among members of the ruling political parties.

The greater part of EU fundings can be appropriated so easily that hardly anybody can resist the temptation to steal something for himself and his friends. When Lithuania joined the EU, stealing European and other public funds immediately became standard and morally justified behaviour.

End of democracy and the rule of law

With all the parties engaged in open stealing, all the moral and legal constraints on Lithuanian politics have disappeared. Although the Lithuanian media are full of reports about obvious crimes by top politicians and oligarchs, there is virtually no reaction from the prosecution. High-ranking judges blatantly violate the Constitution of Lithuania.

With most of the EU billions shared by a small faction of politicians and their comrades, a great deal of Lithuanians have become utterly impoverished; the income gap between the rich and the poor is steadily widening.

The referendum on joining the EU succeeded in Lithuania only thanks to a huge-scale vote-buying; now it is a common practice for every election in Lithuania. The overwhelming majority of Lithuanians do not trust in the main state institutions.

End of independent media

When the government of Lithuania were still campaigning for EU membership before the referendum, they signed contracts with almost ALL the Lithuanian media, which, in exchange for huge rewards, took on an obligation not only to publish every kind of pro-EU propaganda, but also to ABSTAIN FROM PUBLISHING ANY INFORMATION THAT MIGHT CAUSE NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT THE EU. Practically, almost all the Lithuanian media agreed to purposefully disinform their readers and viewers.

Now virtually all the media in Lithuania are dependent on sponsorship of some kind. Ordinary Lithuanians are provided practically only with specially selected and prepared EU-glorifying propaganda.

Standard strategy of the European Union

The story of the integration of Lithuania in the EU is not unique. My country fell victim to the standard EU strategy of dealing with the countries in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe.

First, the EU organises various international meetings, conferences and seminars to which it invites leading politicians and journalists, high-rank civil servants from the target countries. Such meetings take place in nice cities, 5 star hotels; the guests from the East receive generous pocket money and almost inevitably grow fond of the EU, become its informal agents in their countries.

The EU establishes special funds through which it sponsors certain projects, like promotion of civil society, democracy, tolerance, free media, etc. These projects make certain people, like journalists, defenders of human rights, etc. fully dependent on the EU funds. They become the most important disseminators of EU propaganda.

When the EU increases its presence in a country, usually in the framework of an association agreement, more and more influential people become dependent on its funding. The principal political powers and the media become addicted to embezzling or even outright stealing from various EU programs and structural funds.

Full EU membership means even more generous funding and much more stealing opportunities; therefore, politicians, high-level bureaucrats, and owners of the media do everything to convince the population that EU membership is so beneficial for them that it is worth to sacrifice EVERYTHING the EU asks to get there at ANY PRICE.

When the country joins the EU, there is no more need to imitate democracy, transparency, the rule of law and other nicely sounding things used to confuse people of a lower standing. Everything more or less follows the Lithuanian scenario. When a country becomes so corrupt and undemocratic as Lithuania now, the EU can do with it whatever it wants. For example, such country can serve as a tool to fool other potential victims from Eastern Europe.

The EU is generous only to the chosen

I think that everybody whose country nurtures aspirations for closer association with the EU or even full EU membership should think about it twice.

If you are a politician, military officer, journalist, or high-rank public servant, for you the EU means fabulous prospects, countless new opportunities for personal career and improving your well-being. Moreover, if you accidentally happen to find yourself imprisoned for embezzlement or treason, the EU will not leave you in trouble. If you prove that you, for the sake of Europe, can in cold blood betray your country and nation, they will fight to the last to get you out of jail.

But if you do not plan to steal from the EU funds or leave your country for good, the heavier dependence on the EU is likely to result in your impoverishment. Many companies in your country will be closed; the majority of the remaining ones will become property of foreigners. Most creative people will emigrate – others will lose their jobs.

The EU will force your country to grant foreigners more and more privileges. One day you will see that not only Jews, German, and Frenchmen, but also Africans and Gypsies in your homeland have much more rights than yourself.

Believe me, it is an awful feeling – to realise that you, as a local national, are considered by the government to be a second rate person, that they deprive you of your basic human rights only because you still speak your mother tongue at home.

Ten years ago we did all we could to prevent Lithuania from joining the EU. There were only a couple of us, with no funding at all, and of course we lost. Now the Republic of Lithuania has already become nothing more but a puppet, a humble servant of Brussels, Germany, and France, a hollow decoy to lure other victims, a half-live zombie indifferently consuming its own people.

With best regards from Vilnius,
Giedrius Sharkanas

Application to the European Court of Human Rights as an attempt to stop discrimination of Lithuanians in Lithuania

my personal data

14. Statement of the facts

On the 8th of December 2011, the Chaplain of the Lithuanian police Aušvydas Belickas was officially recognised as a crime victim by the the police of the Republic of Lithuania (RL).

Having explicitly reminded the investigating police officer of his high position in the police forces of the RL, Belickas got the privileged legal status of a crime victim because he felt harmed by some anonymous comments on the Internet that blamed the Catholic Church.

On the 18th of July 2012, I was officially informed by the police that a criminal case against me had been started and it was officially suspected that on the 23th of May 2011 I anonymously wrote an Internet comment blaming the so-called hierarchs of the Catholic Church for their greediness and therewith committed a criminal deed (felony?) – that could be punished, according to the article 170.2 of the Penal Code of the RL, inter alia with up to 2 years of imprisonment. The police had established that the comment was sent from the Internet access point that is registered by my mother.

The police officer told me something like that I was big enough and could arrange my counsel myself, then I signed a couple of papers (probably, that I needed no counsel, that I knew Lithuanian language, maybe something else, I do not remember exactly).

I agreed to testify; however, I did not remember if I had actually written that comment. Then the policewoman gave me the questioning protocol to sign. Inter alia, I was proposed to confess of having committed a ‘CRIMINAL DEED’ of which I was suspected.

In my opinion, it was a grave infringement of the articles 3 and 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms (the Convention); however it is the subject matter of my second application to the Court of today. I was astonished by such a humiliating treatment, and I just wrote that I did not remember having written such an Internet comment.

The second questioning by the police was rather one more formality; then they started calling in my close relatives. I had to take my elderly mother (aged 84) to the police station – all that stuff became really humiliating to me and my family. My question of how long their ‘investigation’ could last the policewoman answered, ‘perhaps until the limitation ends,’ – which meant more than a year. At that moment I decided to take active actions to finish it immediately.

First, I thoroughly read the Code of Penal Procedure of the RL and was astonished – it REQUIRES the presence of a legal defender at any questioning of any suspect who does not know Lithuanian (article 51.3); therefore, according to the article 12.1 of the Law on the state-guaranteed legal aid, a state-paid counsel has to be provided to anybody who does not know Lithuanian. In fact, that means that a state-paid lawyer has to be provided to anybody who CLAIMS not knowing Lithuanian; practically every non-Lithuanian can do it if he or she needs a free counsel.

Then I remembered the Convention and many other formal legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania and decided that if the people who do not know Lithuanian (in fact, all non-Lithuanians) enjoy one of the basic human rights (guaranteed inter alia by the article 6.3.b of the Convention), then I should have such a right too, despite being Lithuanian and knowing Lithuanian. On the 5th of November 2012, I submitted a request to the prosecutor Audronė Nastulevičienė (I never met her in person during all these events though I tried it a couple of times – I am not sure if such a person even exists) to provide me with a state-paid defender because the Convention and the Constitution of Lithuania guarantees me rights to a counsel and non-discrimination on the grounds of language and nationality. Simultaneously I submitted another request asking to permit me to get acquainted with the materials of the case against me.

Both of the requests of mine were ultimately rejected, as it has happened with all of my appeals (annexes b, c, and d) except the last one. The Vilnius Regional Court, the highest legal authority in my case, decided to terminate the hearing of my appeal because by that time the police had closed the case against me ‘for failure to collect sufficient evidence’. (annex e)

However, I had already suffered a serious harm. The police continued an absurd and humiliating case against me for almost half a year – I am absolutely sure that they would not have dared even to start it if I had to be provided with a free counsel from the very beginning, as in the case of non-speakers of Lithuanian. I have spent a lot of my precious time dealing with the police and writing countless requests and appeals to various prosecutors and courts. It is clear that if I had not done it, the criminal case against me would most likely still be continuing.

But most important is that both of the prosecutors who rejected my request: Tomas Uldukis and Arūnas Žemrieta, and the judge Petras Karvelis practically argued that I had no right to a state-paid defender because inter alia I KNOW LITHUANIAN. (see annexes b, c, and d) That was extremely humiliating to me, it completely changed my attitudes towards the so-called Republic of Lithuania, its prosecution, courts, and most of its other institutions.

In addition, both the prosecutors and the judge pointed out to me that I could apply for free legal assistance from the municipality. That was also extraordinarily humiliating. I was informed on the municipal Internet page that in order to get free legal aid, I had inter alia to prove that my personal income did not exceed 102 euros per month. In Lithuania this sum of money is enough to provide for a medium size dog; pointing out that I had such a ‘right’ was extremely disgracing to me.

Then I decided to do my best to change the shameful situation in the RL and to stop the blatant discrimination of Lithuanians and other speakers of Lithuanian. However, in the so-called Republic of Lithuania, we, Lithuanians, are practically completely rightless. Most of our rights exist only on paper; judging from the media and my personal experience, even cats and dogs have more chances to defend their rights in the courts of the RL.

Therefore, I decided to try to create a legal precedent in the European Court of Human Rights. As I already have explained, the abuses of my basic rights by the prosecutors and the judge inflicted a great deal of serious harm upon me, and I decided to seek compensation. I lodged a claim of 1 000 000 LTL (about 300 000 €) against the State of Lithuania in the Vilnius District Court on the 11th of February 2013, and it was rejected on the 27th of May. On the 14th of July, I lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court; however, as far as I know, even a date of a court hearing has not been appointed yet.

The courts of the Republic of Lithuania are notorious for their negligence, disrespect for human rights, laws, legal procedures, and especially Lithuanians. It is quite possible that I would be waiting for many years until the very date for court hearing will be appointed. However, I am not young any more, my health is not very good, and I have no direct descendants who could inherit the compensation that is due to me. Lithuanians, especially men, usually do not live long. As almost half a year has passed since I lodged my appeal, the fact of sabotage by the Vilnius Regional Court is so obvious that I think that the Convention entitles me to apply to the Court right now.

15. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and of relevant arguments

Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention were violated by not providing me even with a POSSIBILITY to immediately get a state-paid counsel for the first interrogation (as well as for the second) of mine while for all those who claimed not knowing Lithuanian, the presence of а defender was a state-guaranteed OBLIGATION.

Later, by rejecting my explicit request to implement my concrete rights and to provide me with a state-paid defender as it was obligatory in the case of the persons who do not know Lithuanian because I did know Lithuanian and by impertinently pointing out to me my right to apply for the legal aid provided by the municipality, the prosecutors Tomas Uldukis and Arūnas Žemrieta and the judge Petras Karvelis violated articles 3, 6, 13, and 14 of the Convention.

A violation of article 14 is evident. My acknowledgement that I know Lithuanian caused factual suspension of my right to be defended by a lawyer. I was discriminated on the grounds of language and, indirectly – because non-Lithuanians can always pretend not knowing Lithuanian, on the grounds of nationality.

A violation of article 6 of the Convention is also clear. I cannot afford to hire a lawyer myself. According to official surveys, only one of four Lithuanian families is able to pay unanticipated 240 euros. There have been lots of reports by the Lithuanian media about ordinary Lithuanians convicted as criminals for clearly innocent jokes about Poles, Jews, etc. while degrading mocking at Lithuanians and the Lithuanian traditional religion has been going on for decades without any reaction from the police. Finally, the Supreme Court of the RL has already acquitted a woman who bitterly mocked at gays. That means, the effective depriving of not well-off Lithuanians of legal representation almost unavoidably results in their criminal convictions for ‘criminal deeds’ that are considered innocent jokes in many other countries and even in the RL – if they are directed against Lithuanians. If needed, I can provide concrete evidence; the fact that I was not convicted does not mean that I was not harmed.

Article 3 prohibits ‘degrading treatment’. I was utterly degraded by the direct statements that my mother tongue deprives me of one of the basic human rights. The Republic of Lithuania has brazenly reduced me to a rightless creature, Untermensch, only because I was born Lithuanian and speak the language my mother taught me. I cannot think out ANY other way to offend me as badly as this. In addition, pointing out that I could apply to the municipality and try to prove that my income is not higher than 102 euros has also humiliated me. The supposition that I, as a Lithuanian, can live on an income just enough to sustain a domestic animal has offended me gravely. Thus, article 3 of the Convention was also flagrantly violated.

And finally, I explicitly asked the prosecutors and the court to observe my rights guaranteed by the Convention (see annex f) and their reaction was absent. Thus, article 13 was also blatantly ignored by the judiciary of the RL.

16. Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

On the 27th of May 2013, the judge of the Vilnius District Court Gintaras Pašvenskas rejected my claim for compensation and my request to apply to the Constitutional Court of the RL. (annex a)

17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them)

On the 12th of November 2012, the prosecutor of the Vilnius city district prosecutor office Tomas Uldukis refused to provide me with a state-paid defender because I actually know Lithuanian although I asked to implement my rights established by the Convention and the Constitution of Lithuania. (annex b)

On the 4th of December 2012, the senior prosecutor of the 5th department of the Vilnius city district prosecutor office Arūnas Žemrieta rejected my appeal. (annex c)

On the 3rd of January 2013, the pre-trial judge of the Vilnius District Court Petras Karvelis rejected my complaint (annex f) in which I explicitly asked the court to implement my basic human rights set up in articles 6 and 14 of the Convention. (annex d)

On the 25th of January 2013, the judge of the Vilnius Regional Court Algimantas Valantinas decided to terminate the court hearing because the case against me had been terminated by that time. (annex e)

18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.

On the 14th of June 2013, I submitted an appeal to the Vilnius Regional Court. Although almost half a year has passed, no date of hearing has been nominated.

I am a mortal man and I cannot wait forever. Only a small group of Lithuanians trust in the courts of the RL; legends are told about their sabotage of inconvenient cases – some of them continue for decades.

My case is purely theoretical – no witnesses, investigation, nor evidence are needed. In my opinion, the presence of outright sabotage is evident here – which entitles me to apply to the Court immediately, without waiting 5 or 10 more years.

19 Statement of the object of the application

First of all, a legal precedent that will at last stop current shameless discrimination of Lithuanians by the Republic of Lithuania will give me most satisfaction.

I would also like to get due compensation for the harm I have suffered as a consequence of the violations of my human rights: moral (public recognition that my rights were violated) and material – in my opinion, 300 000 euros should be an appropriate sum for all the humiliation and inconveniences I have experienced.

I am also certain that I should be compensated for all the legal work I have done and maybe still will have to do myself. I think that the circumstance that I cannot afford to hire a lawyer does not deprive me from right to get a compensation for the expenditure on legal services that is received by many rich criminals in the form of reimbursement. Therefore, I want to get a compensation approximately three times higher than the compensation that a professional lawyer would get if he had to do my work. I am not a lawyer, and doing legal work takes me much more time and effort than it would in the case of a professional.

20. Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

No.

the list of documents

the last page

Application to the ECHR with regard to the heinous malpractices by the police of the Republic of Lithuania

my personal data

14. Statement of the facts

On the 8 December 2011, the Chaplain of the Lithuanian police Aušvydas Belickas was officially recognised as a crime victim by the the police of the Republic of Lithuania (RL).

Having explicitly reminded the investigating police officer of his high position in the police forces of the RL, Belickas got the privileged legal status of a crime victim because he felt harmed by some anonymous comments on the Internet that blamed the Catholic Church.

On the 18th of July 2012, I was officially informed by the police that a criminal case against me had been started and it was officially suspected that on the 23th of May 2011 I anonymously wrote an Internet comment blaming the so-called hierarchs of the Catholic Church for their greediness and therewith committed a criminal deed (felony?) – that could be punished, according to the article 170.2 of the Penal Code of the RL, inter alia with up to 2 years of imprisonment. The police had established that the comment was sent from the Internet access point that is registered by my mother.

The police officer told me something like that I was big enough and could arrange my counsel myself, then I signed a couple of papers (probably, that I needed no counsel, that I knew Lithuanian language, maybe something else, I do not remember exactly).

I agreed to testify; however, I did not remember if I had actually written that comment. Then the policewoman gave me the questioning protocol to sign. Inter alia, I was proposed to confess of having committed a ‘CRIMINAL DEED’ of which I was suspected.

According to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms (the Convention), I have the right to the presumption of innocence in all legal proceedings. By the way, the comment did not sound criminal, in my opinion, only one Lithuanian judge out of ten would not acquit the person who sent it.

However, the police had not only presumed (most probably, they did it on a constant basis) that writing that internet comment was certainly a criminal deed, but even proposed me to formally recognise that I had committed a CRIME (a criminal deed).

I was astonished by such brazen impudence by the police and just wrote that I did not remember of having written such an Internet comment.

The police case against me is already closed; however, I was badly humiliated by it and I need a legal precedent that would force the Government of the RL to abolish this malpractice, amend the Code of Penal Procedure and stop mocking at other Lithuanians.

I have tried to bring this case to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania; however, the right to defend one’s constitutional rights in court as well as article 13 (and most of the other articles) of the Convention are just empty words in the Republic of Lithuania. It seems from the media and my personal experience that any mistreated cat or dog has more prospects in the courts of the RL than a Lithuanian whose basic rights have been heavily violated.

Thus I filed a claim of 1 LTL against the State of Lithuania on 19th of September 2012. It took more than half a year until the first court hearing, in which all my requests were rejected. I filed an appeal to the regional court on the 14th of June; however, as far as I know, even a date for a court hearing has not been appointed yet.

I am not young any more, my health is not very good, and I have no direct descendants who could inherit the compensation that is due to me. Lithuanians, especially men, usually do not live long. As almost half a year has passed since I submitted my appeal, the fact of sabotage by the Vilnius Regional Court is so obvious that I think that the Convention entitles me to apply to the Court right now.

15. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and of relevant arguments

Article 6.2 of the Convention was clearly violated by presuming that sending the internet comment of which I was suspected was a criminal deed and by proposing me to confess of having committed a criminal deed. That was an extremely abominable trick. If I had written that comment and had not read thoroughly through the wording of an at first glance standard phrase, I could have been fooled into sentencing myself guilty of a crime although the comment does not sound criminal at all.

For the same reasons, article 3 of the Convention was violated too because such an abomination surely qualifies as ‘degrading treatment’. This was even more aggravated by the circumstance that I am Lithuanian. Those who know Lithuanian in the RL are deprived of their right to be provided with a state-paid counsel, which is guaranteed to everybody who claims not knowing Lithuanian. (That is the matter of my other application to the Court today, which I am sending in a separate letter.) Having ‘confessed’ of having committed ‘criminal deeds’, those Lithuanians who admit everything and cannot afford to hire a professional lawyer usually are quickly sentenced and become criminals for comments that are considered innocent jokes if they refer to Lithuanians or other second rate nations. (One can get an impression that the courts of the RL are utterly despised for their corruption and evident blatant incompetence by the majority of Lithuanians.)

16. Final decision (date, court or authority and nature of decision)

On the 24th of May 2013, the judge of the Vilnius District Court Giedrė Čėsnienė rejected my claim for compensation and my request to apply to the Constitutional Court of the RL. (annex a)

17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision for each of them)

On the 24th of September 2012, the judge of the 2 Vilnius District Court Rima Bražinskienė decided to return my request for compensation for improving it and indicated supposed corrections. (annex b)

On the 9th of October 2012, Bražinskienė refused to accept my claim of 1 LTL to the State of Lithuania and decided that it was under the jurisdiction of the 3 Vilnius District Court. (annex c)

On the 29th of October 2012, the judge of the 3 Vilnius District Court Giedrė Čėsnienė refused to accept my corrected claim and decided that it was under the jurisdiction of the 2 Vilnius District Court. (annex d)

On the 7th of February 2013, the judge of the Vilnius Regional Court Rūta Veniulytė-Jankūnienė decided to return my claim to the newly established Vilnius District Court. (annex e)

18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.

On the 14th of June 2013, I submitted an appeal to the Vilnius Regional Court. Although almost half a year has passed, no date of hearing has been nominated.

I am a mortal man and I cannot wait forever. Only a small group of Lithuanians trust in the courts of the RL; legends are told about their sabotage of inconvenient cases – some of them continue for decades.

My case is purely theoretical – no witnesses, investigation, nor evidence are needed. In my opinion, the presence of outright sabotage is evident here – which entitles me to apply to the Court immediately, without waiting 5 or 10 more years.

19. Statement of the object of the application

I would like to get moral compensation for the harm I suffered as a consequence of the violations of my human rights by the Republic of Lithuania: public recognition of the abuse and a symbolical 1 euro. I would most appreciate a legal precedent that could stop current blatant humiliation of my compatriots by the police of the RL.

I am also certain that I should be compensated for all the legal work I have done and maybe still will have to do myself. I think that the circumstance that I cannot afford to hire a lawyer does not deprive me from right to get a compensation for the expenditure on legal services that is received by many rich criminals in the form of reimbursement. Therefore, I want to get a compensation approximately three times higher than the compensation that a professional lawyer would get if he had to do my work. I am not a lawyer, and doing legal work takes me much more time and effort than it would in the case of a professional.

20. Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

No.

21. List of documents

a) 24-05-2013 decision by the Vilnius District Court to reject my claim against the State of Lithuania;

b) 24-09-2012 decision by the 2 Vilnius District Court to return my request back for correction;

c) 09-10-2012 decision by the 2 Vilnius District Court to refuse to accept my claim;

d) 29-10-2012 decision by the 3 Vilnius District Court to refuse to accept my claim;

e) 07-02-2013 decision by the Vilnius Regional Court to return my claim to Vilnius District Court;

f) My claim against the State of Lithuania with an appendage.

the last page

What do you think about it?


Enter the second and the third digits! please, permit pictures and cookies

name   

   

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.

Mao Tse-Tung

Counter-Propaganda.com

Counter-Propaganda.com – en

the symbol

Counter-Propaganda.com

news

order the news

via e-mail via e-mailRSS RSS

via social networks

the symbol

©  Giedrius // 2005 - 2017