To: Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuanian
Viktoras Muntianas
Inscription: „We received on
24 08 2006” (signature)
Algimantas Matulevičius
24 August 2006
Zenonas Jurgelevičius
Res. at Jaunimo 28 Ringaudai
4324 Kaunas District
Request
Re: Restoration of Justice
Dear Speaker of Seimas,
I address you personally because in order to eliminate violations of law and human rights that are being committed in post-soviet
1. To inspect the correctness of the facts presented by me;
2. To pass new legal acts – the legal norms of which would eliminate the „legal basis“ for further implementation of law and human rights violation and would enable to restore justice.
As persons who headed RL Seimas before you hushed the information presented by me and in this way tolerated the law and human rights violations presented in my letters, I address you and expect that you will not tolerate those law and human rights violations.
Since the restoration of independent state of Lithuania (11 March 1990) while working in various human rights defence organizations I have drawn attention to the non-correspondence of explanations, made by official LR persons, of present legal situation to reality.
1. In post-soviet Lithuanian democracy is being created following the so-called American type of democracy. That means that legal system of such democracy is being created following the legal experience of mankind generalized in the works of English lawyer and philosopher J.Locke who had lived since 1632 to 1704.
J.Locke explains that states are not created in an empty place without people, the territory in which they have settled, language in which they are speaking, material values which have been created by their work and moral and legal provisions they acknowledge. J.Locke explains that a state is a public agreement of the people aimed at organizing order and liquidation of vagueness of natural law (when the very victim is implementing justice). By their change with clear and equal to all laws and objectivity. In the established state the supreme power belongs to the law to which all executive power is inferior and the people is the publisher of laws and only after that the executor of those laws. J.Locke equals the state to trusteeship which is first of all devoted to defending the interests of the trustee and not devoted to the implementation of guardian‘s interests (not aimed at implementation of authorities representatives interests – Z.J.). So the representatives elected by the people who are performing the role of a guardian first of all have their duties and only after that they enjoy rights. People who have elected them are entitled at any point in time to revoke these trustees if (in the opinion of the people) they perform their duties improperly and change them to new ones, more suitable trustees. J.Locke proves that after creation of state the laws ensuring the citizen ownership rights are not invented anew, as the principal aim of the creation of a state is the defence of its citizens lives, health and principal rights and freedoms. J.Locke bases the ownership right in such way: „as every person is his own property, the fruits of his work are his property as well“ (or the movables and real estate acquired for these labour fruits monetary expression-Z.J.) J.Locke states that „Labour creates property and establishes the value of this property“. He emphasizes: „As protection of property is the primary and principal aim due to which the state is created the state officials are not entitled to take away from anybody the property belonging to him against his will“.
The consequence of action of such legal system ought to be the phenomenon which in the world is called „The American dream“. In his interview to magazine „The Atlantic Monthly“ analyst Ted Halstead presented the following description of „the American dream“: „Since the very beginning the principal aim of USA was the creation of society based on opportunities realization and wisdom power. Everything must submit to the following logic. You are working tensely; following all the rules of the game you were offered and moving forward. That is a dream: everybody‘s rising upwards and creation of society with a wide medium class“.
In post-soviet
2. To implement seizure of an alien property in practice the former Soviet nomenclature had to present some legal basing of their actions or at least create an image of such basing for Lithuanian people and world society. The lie on scienter existed in Soviet times universal land nationalization and the scienter necessity to cancel the consequences of that nationalization by a special law became such an image. Already at the end of 1996 I have proved in documents the legal illegitimacy of that lie of governing officials. Exhaustive information about it is in my article enclosed to this request „Who is Who in Post-soviet Lithuania” parts 1, 2, and 3. Without taking into account the revelation and publication of the illegitimate actions and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which is valid in Lithuania and have superior legal power for the rights of RL domestic laws defending the Lithuanian citizen’s rights) the authorities of post-soviet RL till present day implements (following false basis) discriminative „laws” passed by itself, permitting the seizure of the citizen property. Is such seizure of alien property also an inseparable part of democratic way of life?
3. Tuning in the seizure of alien property the executors of legitimately baseless special RL laws in localities often do not respect the limitations of seizure of alien property established by those special laws. A bright example of such self-will and complete impunity for it is the actions of land possession services (part of the information on open violations of law in force performed by land possessors is in my article „Who is Who in Soviet Lithuania” part 4 and its continuation appended to this request. In the same place there are the copies of the documents proving the illegitimacy of those actions) of former Kaunas District Noreikiškės rural district (at present Ringaudai and Academy district elder district). There is also information about the fact that the officials of pre-court investigation institutions do not react to information about the specific crimes in RL presented by me and do not start the investigation of criminal action. Are the employees of those institutions really engaged in law enforcement? The former imperfect Soviet law would evaluate such behaviour as the concealing of a crime...
4. It is impossible to defend from such Post-soviet authorities’ self-will in
Shortly I received a reply No. 01-E2-7191 to my request signed by Judicial Council Secretary A.Milinis of 04 07 2006 (I enclose a copy). In this reply the Judicial Council emphasizes that when hearing a case the Judges obey only the law. I was just asking the Judicial Council to perform (follow) the legal norms of supreme legal power valid in RL. However, judging by the content of the reply – Judicial Council is not at all going to follow the requirements of legal norms of the supreme legal power (obligatory to it, valid in RL).
So I am completely reasonably asking: can justice be defended in such courts at all?
By the facts I have presented it is obvious that the
If obscurity appears during your familiarization with the material I have presented I am ready to present additional documents and additional explanations.
List of enclosed documents:
1. A copy of article „Who is Who in
2. A copy of my „Request“ for RL Judicial Council (reg. No. 85) of 9 June 2006
3. A copy of reply of Judicial Council Secretary A.Milinis No. 01-E2-7191 of 04 07 2006
Zenonas Jurgelevičius (signature)
Enclosed Document Nr.2
Stamp: "JUDICIAL COUNCIL
RECEIVED
09 June 2006
No. 85".
To: Chairman of the Judicial Council of Lithuania
Resp. Virgilijus Valancius
9 June 2006
Zenonas Jurgelevicius
Res. at Jaunimo 28 Ringaudai
4324 Kaunas Reg.
PETITION
For 16 years I have been engaged in active human right defence activity in various public organizations: "Lithuanian Landowners Union", "Lithuanian Human Right Protection Association", "Lithuanian United Nation Association", "Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights ", "Lithuanian Sajudis" and "Lithuanian Person Authorized Representative Society". I specialise in protection of land ownership rights which were acquired by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania until 15 June 1940 (the beginning of occupation of Lithuania by Soviet Union). Doing this work I have noticed significant internal contradictions of laws of the Republic of Lithuania that regulate ownership rights of Lithuanian citizens. These contradictions result in the fact that the provisions of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which are of superior legal power, are denied by domestic laws of the Republic of Lithuania. I have exhaustively and reasonably considered this problem in my article "Kas yra Kas posovietineje Lietuvoje" (Who is Who in Post-Soviet Lithuania) published in daily "Lietuvos Aidas" of Autumn, 2005. At present the text of mentioned article is accessible for freely in rubric "Zmogaus teises" (Human Rights) existing in information portal http://www.straipsniai.lt/.
Courts of the Republic of Lithuania until present moment apply "Law on Restoration of the Republic of Lithuania Citizens Ownership Rights to Remaining Real Estate" No. VIII-359 of 1 July 1997, which was passed when the Art.1 of the First Protocol of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was already in force in the Republic of Lithuania and which was passed by RL Seimas (Parliament) on the basis of false information and openly contradicts the mentioned Convention. This means that the courts (judges) of post-Soviet Lithuania do not take into account the continuance of LR citizens ownership rights which have never been cancelled and the fact that RL Seimas had no means to pass "special" law of 1 July 1997 without violating international obligations. That means that by practically applying the mentioned special law courts themselves constantly violate Art. 1 of the First Protocol of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as Art. 26 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, (the Republic of Lithuania is a party to this treaty) which prohibits to deny the legal international obligations of a state by the domestic laws of that state (principle of pacta sunt servanda). Such "execution of justice" by RL courts openly contradicts the legal norms established by Art. 6 "Right to a Fair Trial" and Art. 13 "Right to an Effective Remedy" of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Courts of Post-Soviet RL execute not justice but open discrimination in respect of legitimate landowners, so that the former Soviet nomenclature (and its congenials) could seize alien property in post-Soviet Lithuania. Legal provisions of Art. 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prohibits such discrimination.
The behaviour of officials of RL courts - as a state institution which must ensure justice in the state of Lithuania, raises grounded doubts whether RL courts are actually executing justice. The basis for such doubts are the following facts:
1. The coertion executed by land administrators to petty landowners to agree with legally ungrounded demands and refuse all or major part of the land ownership which is continuing for 16 years is equaled to legitimately executed land reform. However, in the world practice such behaviour is considered as corruption.
2. Soviet-occupational power in 1940 did not execute a complete land nationalization of all Lithuanian citizens (it left land up to 30 ha for eternal use of the citizens) but it rather carried out the Soviet land reform. This has been proved by the documents. Why RL courts do not acknowledge this fact and violate RL international obligations (already enumerated in this petition)?
3. RL citizens cannot defend their violated rights in post-Soviet Lithuania court since RL courts, based on domestic laws that contradict the Constitution and international laws valid in the Republic of Lithuania (Art. 56 of RL Code of Civil Process), recognize citizens as being insufficiently reasonable to be able to understand their legal situation and due to that do not let citizens at their free will to choose a person who would most properly represent their interests in court. Are the constitutional right of the citizen to have and express his opinion (see: valid RL Constitution Art.25 1, 2 and 3 parts) and constitutional right to equality and by the same to personal freedom (see: valid RL Constitution Art. 29) not denied in the most barbaric way? What human freedom can there be left to discuss if law prohibits the person to defend his freedom? Such self-will of the persons having power did not exist even during the Soviet period! How is it combined with the democratic order?
4. When courts decide cases according to the legitimately ungrounded special laws of the Republic of Lithuania which I have already named, situations when citizens lose cases due to causes regulated by procedural norms become a possibility. Dear RL Judicial Council Chairman, how is it possible to loose a case - which cannot be initiated - due to office work and regulations similar to it? That is not an execution of justice - it is a complete absurdity. So it is necessary to decide urgently: what "violations" of procedural laws and when can they be the cause of loosing a civil case in a court.
5. Don't the facts stated in the first four paragraphs of this petition suggest that in RL courts the obligation and right of the citizens to behave reasonably which is consolidated in RL Civil Code Art.1.5 is limited artificially and that determines the loss of their cases in courts?
6. (Supplementing the 5th) Can a law limit the right of a person to behave wisely and if the fact is such: should such "law" be executed?
7. Why the citizens of a state under the rule of law must defend themselves in court from the self-will of persons who abuse law? Isn't it the major function of a state to defend its citizens from internal and external self-will executors?
8. Who and when will recover the damage made (and still being made) by execution of legally groundless “special laws“ to the legitimate landowners?
It is obvious that after eliminating the cases I have stated - the way to corruption carried out by state officials and their seizure of alien property would be blocked in Lithuanian state. I request the Judicial Council headed by you to consider the facts stated in this petition that prevent the RL courts from carrying out justice and take measures to eliminate them.
Zenonas Jurgelevicius
Member of Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights (signature)
Enclosed Document Nr.3
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
A. Jaksto 13-1, LT-01105 Vilnius, tel. (8 5) 268 5186, fax (8 5) 268 5187
To: Mr. Zenonas Jurgelevicius
04 07 2006 No. 01-E2-7191
Jaunimo str. 28, Ringaudai,
4324, Kaunas Region
RE: PETITION
On 12 06 2006 in Judicial Council your petition has been received in which it is indicated that a number of the Republic of Lithuania legal acts, to be precise, the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, Art. 56 of the Code of Civil Process of the Republic of Lithuania which establishes persons who are able to act as representatives according to commission in court in conducting civil cases, contradict the international laws ratified by the Republic of Lithuania, among them the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamentals Freedoms and the protocols supplementing it. The courts of the Republic of Lithuania applying these law norms in conducting cases also violate the mentioned international law norms and human rights.
In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania Constitution Art. 109 part 3 the judges conducting cases listen only to the law. In Constitution Art. 110 part 1 it is indicated that a judge cannot apply a law which contradicts the Constitution. At the same time only the Constitutional Court is competent to acknowledge that a statutory act contradicts the Constitution. Subjects entitled to address the Constitutional Court regarding examination of the conformity of legal act to the provicions of the Constitution have been enumerated in Art. 106 of the Republic of Lithuania Constitution. The Judicial Council does not dispose such a right.
Secretary of the Judicial Council (signature) Albertas Milinis
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą