Harabin in opposition to the Slovak Republic was declared unacceptable by the ECtHR for abuse of the proper to lodge a criticism. Lipšic rejected the criticism in opposition to the Slovak Republic on the floor that the complainant had not suffered materials harm inside the which means of Article 35 para. 3 letter b) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In the Harabin case in opposition to the Slovak Republic, the complainant introduced an motion for the safety of character, on the foundation of which the defendant was obliged, inter alia, to pay the complainant the equal of round EUR 33 200 in respect of non-pecuniary harm. However, the defendant challenged the verdict in a constitutional criticism.
In April 2016, the Constitutional Court upheld the criticism, put aside the judgment underneath enchantment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for additional proceedings. The complainant complained earlier than the ECtHR that he couldn’t participate in the proceedings earlier than the Constitutional Court, though it involved his civil rights and obligations. He claimed to have realized of the Constitutional Court’s discovering on 9 May 2017.
Harabin responds to a COMPROMISING picture in the RESPIRATOR: IT’S NOT A PHOTO ASSEMBLY, I protected individuals!
After the ECtHR notified the criticism to the authorities in May 2020, the authorities raised an objection to the abuse of the proper to lodge a criticism in the submitted criticism. She acknowledged that the applicant had withdrawn the motion at the listening to on 9 May 2017 on the floor that the defendant had already paid him the quantity in query and that the motive for the proceedings had lapsed. The Court of Appeal due to this fact put aside the judgment at first occasion on 22 September 2017, stayed the proceedings and the choice entered into pressure on 15 October 2018.
In the choice of 12 October 2017, the complainant didn’t inform him of the Government’s argument that the criticism constituted an abuse of the proper to a person criticism, as the complainant didn’t inform him of the withdrawal of the motion at the listening to on 9 May 2017 and subsequently knowledgeable him of the keep. October 2018), the complainant having to bear in mind that these circumstances had been related, at the newest after the ECtHR’s choice on his earlier criticism (Harabin v. the Slovak Republic, adopted on 19 June 2018).
The ECtHR famous that, though the criticism as such was directed in opposition to proceedings earlier than the Constitutional Court, additional proceedings earlier than the normal courts following the Constitutional Court’s ruling had been a continuation of the identical “Decision-making” The “Civil rights and obligations”.
SHOCK! Harabin precipitated a FAIR in the courtroom: The POLICE needed to intervene!
He acknowledged that the growth of proceedings earlier than the normal courts after the ruling of the Constitutional Court represents “Circumstances related to the criticism” inside the which means of Rule 47 (1) 7 of the Convention. The ECtHR famous that the complainant had not offered any convincing rationalization as to why he had not knowledgeable him of this growth. As the data pertains to the very coronary heart of the case, based on the ECtHR, such conduct was opposite to the function of the proper to a person criticism. It concludes that the criticism constitutes an abuse of the proper to lodge a criticism inside the which means of Article 35 (1). 3 letter a) of the Convention and due to this fact declared it inadmissible.
Daniel Lipšic’s criticism
The article continues on the subsequent web page >>>