10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
Update:
10 April: ECHR Head of Division: Soren Prebensen writes (PDF) that Polish Judge Krystof Wojtyczek sitting between 20 March and 03 April, decided to declare the application inadmissible; without providing any written reasons whatsoever for his 'inadmissible' decision whatsoever. The decision is final and not subject to appeal. The file will be destroyed one year after the single judge's decision.
0 Comments
Norway Transparency Notice's RE: Application to European Court of Human Rights: Johnstone v. Norway: Re: Violations of Article 13 (Effective Remedy) and 14 (Discrimination); sent to: Anders Breivik & Geir Lippestad (PDF); Addresseavisen: Arne Blix (PDF); Subject: Aftenposten: Ed. Haugsgjerd (PDF); Bergens Tidende: Ed Eilertsen (PDF); Dagbladet: Ed. Markussen (PDF); Env. App. Board: Ms. Strom (PDF); Fremskrittspartiet: Ms. Siv Jensen (PDF); Min Foreign Aff: Mr. Espen Eide (PDF); Min of Justice: Grete Faremo (PDF); NRK: Ed: Hans Bjerkaas (PDF); Supreme Court: Sec. Gen. Gunnar Bergby (PDF); Supreme Court: Justice Tore Schei (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Arntzen (PDF); Oslo Dist Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (PDF); Parl Ombudsman: Arne Fliflet (PDF); Pros Svein Holden & Inga Engh, c/o NO Police (PDF); Den Rettsmedisinske Kommisjon: Psych Husby & Sorheim (PDF); Supv. Comm for Judges: Espen Eiken (PDF); TV2: Ed: Alf Hildrum (PDF); VG: Ed: Torry Pedersen (PDF); 22 Juli Victim Families; c/o Hallgren, Elgesem & Larsen (PDF); Miljøpartiet De Grønne: Marcussen & Nissen (PDF); Hoyre: Erna Solberg (PDF); KRF: Knut Arild Hareide (PDF); KSP: Ørnulf Nandrup (PDF); Arbeiderpartiet: Jens Stoltenberg (PDF); AUF: Eskil Pedersen (PDF); PensionerParty: Einar Lonstad (PDF); Rodt: Bjornar Moxnes (PDF); SV: Audun Lysbakken (PDF); Venstre: Trine Skei Grande (PDF) I have filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court. Specifically the violations are: • Discrimination: 24 August 2012: Oslo District Court: Judge Wenche Arntzen: Norway v. Anders Breivik Necessity Judgement • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Supreme Court: Secretary General Gunnar Bergby: 10 September 2012 Decision • Discrimination and Denied Right to an Effective Remedy: Parliamentary Ombudsman: Head of Division: Berit Sollie: 15 November 2012 Ruling Respectfully, Lara Johnstone Encl: Johnstone v. Norway Application to ECHR (Application Exhibits not enclosed) Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman: Language Discrimination and Lack of Clear Principles by Secretariat Supervisory Committee for Judges Norwegian Language Rulings, in response to English Language complaints in Case 12-071: Judge Nina Opsahl, 12-072: Judge Wenche Arntzen, 12-073: Judge Tore Schei. (PDF) On 30 May 2012 and 06 June 2012, I filed three complaints with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee of Judges respectively against: (1) Judge Tore Schei, (2) Judge Wenche Arntzen and (3) Judge Nina Opsahl. After much delay and obstruction, on 03 September 2012, I was issued Case Numbers and informed that my complaints had been given the case numbers of 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). Furthermore that “If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved.” I was never informed the rulings of the Judges would be in Norwegian. I was also never provided with any parties statements. On 23 October 2012, the Supervisory Committee for Judges issues the rulings in the matter (without hearing any of the parties statements, or providing me with a response to their statements), and issued the rulings in Norwegian. On 12 November I requested an English translation. On 14 November the Supervisory Committee for Judges refused to provide me with an English translation, stating that the ‘decisions are always in Norwegian’. Furthermore that allegedly “there has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English”. The Supervisory Committee for Judges did not provide any evidence for this statement. Requests on 14 November and 15 December for English translations have been ignored. Correspondence to Supv. Comm. for Judges: Espen Eiken: RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl I am still awaiting a response to my email of 14 November: I repeat: Are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language? Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Subject: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl I have received the rulings. Thank you. 1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian? 2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian 3. Could you provide an English translation? 4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation. 5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me. Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved." Complaint (PDF) to Parliamentary Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing: On 27 September Petitioner filed an Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. A complaint of slow case processing was filed with the Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September, Secretary General Gunnar Bergby issued a ruling denying Petitioners’s Application for review citing Petitioner’s alleged lack of legal standing. On 11 September, Petitioner filed a request for clarification of the ruling, requesting among others the specific statute that grants a Sec. Gen. the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, when, this is generally a matter that is decided upon by a court, if the respondent party raises it as a matter of dispute. No response has been received to petitioner’s 08 October reminder letter. [Received 03 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints. However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'. The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): Judge Opsahl (PDF), Judge Arntzen (PDF), Justice Schei (PDF). Corresponsendence to Norway Supreme Court: Secretary General Bergby: Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24) I am still awaiting a response to my request sent Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:04 AM. In the absence of a response by 10 October 2012, I shall conclude you have no intention of responding, and refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Relief Requested as per attached: Response to: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24) Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court? It is my understanding – perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute, but for the court, if any party raises the matter as a matter of dispute. Response to Gunnar Bergby: Secretary-General / President: Supreme Court of Norway: Subject: Response to Sec.Gen G.Bergby decision of 09.09.2012 in Review of Breivik Judgement Application (2011-188627-24) Issued dealt with in attached PDF: * Relief Requested: * Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings: * Legal Standing: Legal Interest ITO (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination * Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights. * Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts: 1. Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, in "Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000) 2. Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei's, 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.." 3. Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System". * Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation: (I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order. (II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306 (III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377 (IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389 (V) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2) The Review application can be processed in accordance with any, or a combination of the aforementioned statutory guidelines, referring me either to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Section 389), a relevant Appeals Court. What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings. Ruling by Supreme Court of Norway: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby in: Application for review of Oslo District Court Judgement of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24) Reference is made to your e-mails sent 27 August, 28 August and 31 August 2012 regarding the above mentioned matter. I wish to draw your attention to the Norwegian Criminal Procedure Act section 306 (a copy in English is enclosed). According to this regulation, 1st paragraph, the parties may appeal against a criminal judgment rendered by the district or appellate court. Persons or legal entities that are not parties to the case are not given the right of appeal. Mr. Anders Behring Breivik and the prosecution authority are the only parties in the specific case mentioned above, and the right of appeal is constricted to these. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Norway will not be able to comply with the request set forth in your e-mails. Further requests and applications from you will neither be handled nor answered by the Supreme Court. |
RH Data Archive:Radical Honoursty Eco-Feminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.
Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|