2012-019 European Court of Human Rights and ECJ-and-the-EU

It is important to remember that the Human Rights Act was set up after the war to protect those suffrering  political and racial persecution under the Nazis. Not entitled to a family life, not fleeing hard work in their country etc. but also to protect honest citizens from the excesses of the government. Not to protect terrorists and criminals from the law and provide a fat income for Human Rights solicitors. It was started with the best of intentions as an international agreement. It has been hijacked by the EU by selectively employment and inserting some 47 of their own judges to make judgements of value to the EU. It is no longer what it was originally constructed.

We now have a situation where an obscure foreign judge can over rule our elected parliament.

The remit of the European Court of Justice is not to administer justice but to make judgments that ‘further ever closer union’ of the EU.

We will not change the EU human rights law admits minister: Damian Green defies outrage over Qatada ruling. Green is a fervent Remainer so presumably he wishes to do whatever he can to keep the UK under EU control.  We are still under EU control although we have left the EU. As of now an unelected Azerbijani judge has the authority to over rule our elected parliament. Tinkering with it to appease the EU will not solve problems with it. The only democratic solution is to leave the ECHR completely and write our own based on the Magna Carta and our Bill or rights that has served us well for nearly 1000 years – updated if need be.

All it needs is an amendment to the one line of the Human Rights Act at the very start that says judges must take account of judgements and comments at the ECHR & that the Act trumps all other legislation. Reverse that to say that it does not override anything.

However Kelvin Mackenzie (ex editor of The Sun) reported on GBNews that the UK Supreme Court has threatened our parliament that if they try to leave, or amend, the ECHR the Supreme Court will block everything the government tries to enact. Blackmail surely? The Supreme Court is a creature of the EU and owes its allegience to the EU over riding its allegience to Queen and Country see http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2020-11-the-appointment-of-judges-and-magistrates/


Scroll down to read how prisoners may be getting the vote in the UK

Government defeat on Qatada deportation put the spotlight on the ECHR
Theresa May and Michael Fabricant both say they want to ditch the convention
But justice minister Damian Green said no plans were being made to do so. (Damian Green is a fervent Remainer)   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-damian-green-remain-comments-eu-referendum-uk-prospects-first-secretary-state-theresa-may-conservatives-a7993941.html) They cannot do so while the UK is locked into the EU. We have now mostly left the EU so there is no reason to stay within the EU’s ECHR control any longer.
Opposition figures admit that there is a need for reform in light of radical cleric’s case.


Europe has had a long history of abuse of Human Rights from the Feudal System, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic code to Hitler’s NSDAP and Stalin’s Soviet Eastern European states.

The European Court of Human Rights was started after WWII with 12 judges from an initiative by Eleanor Roosevelt because of the appalling abuse of Human Rights in Europe during the Nazi era. This was before the appalling behaviour of Stalin became exposed as far worse than the behaviour of the Nazi party. It was mostly written by the British to deal with vast numbers of Displaced Persons and those who could not return to countries dominated by the Soviets. The situation is completely different now. The ECHR is often being interpreted now to deal with cases it was never intended for. A complete overhaul is needed. The Council of Europe was set in 1949 but it now flys the same flag as the EU. A sure sign they are esentially linked.

Its main problem with the ECHR is that is now used to further the Marxist aim of eliminating borders, Nations, different races and wanting a single Mestizo people. The Human Rights of criminals and illegal Migrants are now considered to be equal to, or above, those of the honest national people. It is against Human nature.

The ECHR now has many more EU judges and even the British judge was born in Germany. The ECHR should have only 12 judges and the British judge should be a British born national.


It initially consisted of 12 very respected and experienced judges.

Now the ECHR consists of 47 judges, many of whom are appointed more for their political opinions than their legal expertise. Many were also complicit in the legal system of East European countries in their communist past.

Initially the ECHR was a stand alone court before the EU was established.  Since then it is being slowly hi-jacked by the EU. In theory the ECHR and the EU are quite separate institutions. The ECHR is strictly under the Council of Europe (CoE). However they both fly the same flag (actually not really a flag but a banner*) and if a country is in the CoE then they required to ‘voluntarily’ sign up to the ECHR. In practice the ECHR is inextricably linked with the EU and under its control and the CoE  and is steadily becoming an agent of the European Commission.

Inside the court of ECHR – note the carpet


The fundamental flaw in the ECHR is that it is full of the rights of citizens and criminals but very light on Human Responsibilities or the rights of victims. It now being used that the criminal has the same rights as the victim and the victim is as criminal as the criminal.

We have a situation whereby an unelected Azerbijani judge can over rule our elected parliament.

  • The EU insisted the UK submitted to the rulings of the ECHR
  • However the EU has not submitted itself to such rulings of the ECHR
  • It is not possible to bring any legal case against the EU at the ECHR
  • It is, however, possible to bring a legal case against the UK
  • There are currently 11 cases pending against the UK
  • There have been 936 cases in total against the UK
  • Until March it was still possible for a Russian judge to rule on ‘human rights violations’ in the UK

Its remit is not now to decide justice but to make judgements the further ‘ever closer union with the EU’. So why have our government agreed to remain subject to the ECHR? The finger points to our Home Office who wish to rejoin the EU.

Very few of the new breed of EU judges have any knowledge of English Common Law and those who do wish to see it replaced with the EU Napoleonic Corpus Juris.

In Corpus Juris you can be arrested without evidence, held in custody for perhaps years without charge and you are deemed guilty until you can prove your innocence. If you are in prison that is almost impossible. There is no Habeas Corpus, right of silence or onus on the prosecution to prove your guilt.

read  Gerrard Batten’s MEP booklet.

The (unelected) European Commission intends that there should be a common legal system across the EU. That system will be Corpus Juris and English Common Law is to be replaced by CJ.

* It is only States that have flags. As the EU is not a state it cannot have a flag; it is a banner or Logo.

However some years ago, people objected to the flying of the EU flag and said it required planning permission because it was not a national flag and therefore an “advertisement” .
Mr Prescott (or a friend of his) it had it reclassified as a bona fide flag. However changing the name does not change its nature. Calling a duck a chicken does not make it a chicken.

© Mick Greenhough 2012

The crucial missing part of Cameron’s EU deal

Without proper control of our laws, the rest matters much less

13 February 2016

13 February 2016

Last week Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, tabled proposals which the government hopes will form the basis of the UK’s renegotiated relationship with the European Union. Politically, the proposals may be just the job: a new commitment to enhance competitiveness, proposals to limit benefits to migrants, recognition that member states’ different aspirations for further integration must be respected, and creation of a ‘red card’ mechanism to block EU legislation. Legally, however, they raise more questions than they answer.

This ought to have been an opportunity to look at the Court of Justice of the European Union, whose reach has extended to a point where the status quo is untenable. Aside from eroding national sovereignty (which it does) the current situation also undermines legal certainty — which, in turn, undermines good governance. Proper reform needs to address the EU legal order, in particular the jurisdictional muscle-flexing of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The new proposals do not do this. Instead, they duck the issue entirely — clearing the way for a whole new body of EU rights law.

The problem lies in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was solemnly proclaimed in 2000. It described 50 new ‘rights, freedoms and principles’ in addition to the 20-odd rights in the European Convention of Human Rights. So the Charter was a far more sweeping document. In 2007 it was given legal force by the Lisbon Treaty. At the time, it was loudly proclaimed that this would change nothing: that it just underlined what was anyway the case. Smelling a rat, the Labour government asked for — and was given — an assurance in writing that Britain would not be affected by the Charter. It was called ‘Protocol 30’.

Before the ink had dried on Protocol 30, concerns were voiced about its precise meaning and effect. Tony Blair assured the Commons that there was nothing to worry about: ‘It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the Charter and judicial and home affairs.’ David Miliband, then Foreign Secretary, also assured us that the Charter would not ‘extend the reach of European courts into British law’. Four years later, the coalition government was giving similar assurances: in March 2011 Ken Clarke, then Justice Secretary, said that the Charter was of more presentational importance and did ‘not actually change anything’.

In English courts, however, another picture has been emerging. Take the case of ‘NS’, an Afghan asylum seeker who arrived in the UK seven years ago. Given that he had come via Greece, where he had been arrested, the UK sought to return him there under the Dublin Convention. But he argued that the treatment of asylum seekers in Greece amounted to ‘degrading’ treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. He also sought to invoke the Charter of Fundamental Rights — which, according to Messrs Blair, Miliband and Clarke, should have been legally impossible.

This was referred to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg which ruled (in effect, and after some domestic backsliding) that the British opt-out had no legal force and the Charter of Fundamental Rights applied in the UK in precisely the same way as in any other member state. Since then, the English courts have increasingly been urged to recognise and give effect to new Charter-based rights in areas of law as diverse as employment disputes, immigration and asylum claims.

So where are we now? Mr Justice Mostyn has put it well. In 1998, the Human Rights Act incorporated large parts of the European Convention on Human Rights — but not all of it. Some parts were deliberately missed out by Parliament. Yet the Charter, he said, ‘contains all of those missing parts — and a great deal more’. In spite of Blair’s endeavours, he said, ‘it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law’. Moreover, he said, it ‘would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed’.

Which raises an interesting question. The Tusk proposals suggest that the government does not intend to use this ‘renegotiation’ to reassert any form of Charter opt-out or control over its scope. So why repeal the Human Rights Act while the Charter, with its far wider panoply of rights, remains?

As David Anderson QC and Dr Cian Murphy have argued, the Charter — as it now stands — requires ‘enormous faith to be placed in the Court of Justice, its ultimate arbiter’. My current view is that a court which has been known in cases of vital importance to ignore its own rulings (viz, the infamous Digital Rights Ireland case), and give no reasoned explanation for doing so, is acting capriciously rather than judiciously. It does not inspire much faith.

Now, when Britain is debating its relationship to the EU, we should state our position afresh. Here is an opportunity to restore a measure of constitutional coherence. Let us not pass it by.

Marina Wheeler is a human rights lawyer practising at One Crown Office Row. She was called to the bar in 1987 and took silk last month. A longer version of this article can be found on ukhumanrightsblog.com. Marina Wheeler is a human rights lawyer practising at One Crown Office Row. She was called to the bar in 1987 and took silk last month.

Composition of the Court now 47 judges

(in order of precedence as at 23.05.2011)

Name Elected in respect of:
Jean-Paul Costa, President France


Nicolas Bratza, Vice-President United Kingdom


Françoise Tulkens, Vice-President Belgium


Josep Casadevall, Section President Andorra


Nina Vajić, Section President Croatia


Dean Spielmann, Section President Luxembourg


Corneliu Bîrsan Romania


Peer Lorenzen Denmark


Karel Jungwiert CzechRepublic


Boštjan Zupančič Slovenia


Anatoly Kovler Russian Federation


Elisabeth Steiner Austria


Lech Garlicki Poland


Elisabet Fura Sweden


Alvina Gyulumyan Armenia


Khanlar Hajiyev Azerbaijan


Ljiljana Mijović Bosnia and Herzegovina


Egbert Myjer Netherlands


Sverre Erik Jebens Norway


Davíd Thór Björgvinsson Iceland


Danutė Jočienė Lithuania


Ján Šikuta SlovakRepublic


Dragoljub Popović Serbia


Ineta Ziemele Latvia


Mark Villiger Liechtenstein


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre Monaco


Päivi Hirvelä Finland


Giorgio Malinverni Switzerland


George Nicolaou Cyprus


Luis López Guerra Spain


András Sajó Hungary


Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia


Ledi Bianku Albania


Nona Tsotsoria Georgia


Ann Power Ireland


Zdravka Kalaydjieva Bulgaria


Işıl Karakaş Turkey


Mihai Poalelungi Moldova


Nebojša Vučinić Montenegro


Kristina Pardalos San Marino


Guido Raimondi Italy


Ganna Yudkivska Ukraine


Vincent A. De Gaetano Malta


Angelika Nußberger Germany


Julia Laffranque Estonia


Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Portugal


Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Greece

Erik Fribergh, Registrar          Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar



Need to know which judges have limited experience and which are ex-communist judges.


From the time of Lord Longford in the 60s the UK legal profession has steadily taken on a philosophy that the victim is equally guilty as the criminal.


This has been consolidated by the steady infiltration since then of the Frankfurt School and Common Purpose into the police as well as the legal profession. The European Court of Human Rights. was an initiative by Eleanor Roosevelt after WWII. It consisted of 12 highly respected and experienced judges. Now there are 47 judges of whom most are appointed on political grounds. Many have limited legal expertise while others were apparatchiks of communist East Europe. Few have any knowledge of, nor interest in, English Common law where you cannot be arrested without evidence nor held in custody without charge. You can be under EU Corpus Juris.

The ECHR consider the Human Rights of criminals to be of equal importance to those of their victims and the victim of a crime is as equally guilty as the criminal but biased in favour of the criminal.

They support the philosophy of the Frankfurt School.  http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2012-025-the-frankfurt-school-to-destroy-western-civilisation/

Are they part of the EU?  Well they fly the EU flag – the most potent symbol of allegiance. However as the EU is not a state its ‘flag’ is in fact only a banner.


(in order of precedence as at 01.11.2012)



Name Elected in respect of:
Dean Spielmann, President Luxembourg
Josep Casadevall, Vice-President Andorra
Guido Raimondi, Vice-President Italy
Ineta Ziemele, Section President Latvia
Mark Villiger, Section President Liechtenstein
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Section President Monaco
Corneliu Bîrsan Romania
Peer Lorenzen Denmark
Boštjan Zupančič Slovenia
Nina Vajić Croatia
Anatoly Kovler Russian Federation
Elisabeth Steiner Austria
Alvina Gyulumyan Armenia
Khanlar Hajiyev Azerbaijan
Davíd Thór Björgvinsson Iceland
Danutė Jočienė Lithuania
Ján Šikuta Slovak Republic
Dragoljub Popović Serbia
Päivi Hirvelä Finland
George Nicolaou Cyprus
Luis López Guerra Spain
András Sajó Hungary
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
Ledi Bianku Albania
Nona Tsotsoria Georgia
Ann Power-Forde Ireland
Zdravka Kalaydjieva Bulgaria
Işıl Karakaş Turkey
Nebojša Vučinić Montenegro
Kristina Pardalos San Marino
Ganna Yudkivska Ukraine
Vincent A. De Gaetano Malta
Angelika Nußberger Germany
Julia Laffranque Estonia
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Portugal
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Greece
Erik Møse Norway
Helen Keller Switzerland
André Potocki France
Paul Lemmens Belgium
Helena Jäderblom Sweden
Paul Mahoney United Kingdom
Aleš Pejchal Czech Republic
Johannes Silvis Netherlands
Krzysztof Wojtyczek Poland


Who are you going to vote for Fletch? Paul Mahoney’s recommendations could  see politicians campaigning in jails at the next election

By  Richard Littlejohn

PUBLISHED: 00:05, 4 October  2013 |  UPDATED: 01:33,  4 October 2013

Representative? Paul Mahoney hasn't practised law in the UK since the Seventies and has never sat as a judge in this countryRepresentative? Paul Mahoney hasn’t practised law in the  UK since the Seventies and has never sat as a judge in this country


Axe murderers will be given the vote if  Britain’s representative on the European Court of Human Rights gets his way.

Paul Mahoney told a cross-party group of  politicians that all prisoners should be allowed to participate in elections.

At a meeting in Strasbourg, he said: ‘If you  are killed by an axe murderer, I would still give him the vote. He would have a  say.’

Mahoney wants Parliament to reverse its  decision to defy the ECHR’s ruling that a blanket ban on letting jail inmates  vote is illegal.

He claims that refusal to comply with the  edict is ‘damaging’ our reputation abroad. His comments have been interpreted as  support for John Hirst, who served 25 years for killing his landlady with an  axe.

Hirst has been campaigning for all prisoners  to get the vote, with the full backing of the parasitical ‘yuman rites’  industry.

Call Me Dave has said that the thought of  letting prisoners take part in elections makes him feel ‘physically sick’.

When the European court’s ruling came before  the House of Commons it was rejected by the overwhelming margin of more than ten  to one.

So who the hell is Paul Mahoney and in what  sense could he be said to ‘represent’ Britain? He certainly doesn’t represent  the wishes of Parliament or the vast majority of the British people.

How did he get to ‘represent’ Britain in  Europe’s supreme court? Mahoney hasn’t practised law here since the Seventies  and has never sat as a judge in this country.

His only judicial experience was a spell  chairing something called the EU Civil Service Tribunal, a glorified works  council which rules on internal employment disputes in Brussels.

Mahoney is a career bureaucrat, having spent  three decades working for the Council of Europe, the body which appointed him as  a judge in 2012 on a tax-free salary of £150,000.


His name was put forward by the Ministry of  Justice. He was chosen from a short-list of three, which also included Ben  Emmerson QC, a founder member of the Wicked Witch’s Matrix Chambers, who  represented Abu Qatada.

The other candidate was a barrister who  specialises in insolvency and pensions. This was at a time when the justice  ministry was still being run by Euro-fanatic Ken Clarke.

His department couldn’t come up with a single candidate who had sat as a judge in Britain. You might have thought that judicial experience would be a basic requirement for anyone applying to work as a European judge.

Incredibly, it isn’t. Most of the ECHR’s 47  members are career bureaucrats like Mahoney, many of them from former  totalitarian dictatorships which have little history of anything which could  remotely be described as ‘justice’ or ‘human rights’.

Given that some of these countries were until  fairly recently banging people up in gulags for ‘political crimes’, it makes you  wonder why they’re now so keen on giving prisoners the vote.

Of course, this isn’t really about prisoners’  rights. It’s merely another example of a remote supra-national organisation  imposing its will on formerly sovereign nations, just to show us who’s  boss.

Although the ECHR is separate from the EU,  it shares the fundamental belief that independent nations are at best irrelevant  and at worst downright dangerous.

The idea that countries can be trusted to  make their own laws is anathema to the Eurocrats. And never forget that the  incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law was Tony Blair’s  self-proclaimed ‘proudest’ achievement.

Comedic: Richard Beckinsale (left) and Ronnie Barker (right) in their roles as Godber and Fletch in the classic TV comedy Porridge. If prisoners do get the vote politicians could be campaigning in jails before the next electionComedic: Richard Beckinsale (left) and Ronnie Barker  (right) in their roles as Godber and Fletch in the classic TV comedy Porridge.  If prisoners do get the vote politicians could be campaigning in jails before  the next election


As a consequence we have lost control of  everything from our borders to our criminal justice system. Labour and the Lib  Dems love ‘Europe’ because it is a convenient way of saddling a reluctant  British public with unpopular laws and ludicrous rules and regulations.

The Tories promised to withdraw from the  European court and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, a plan which enjoys  substantial support among voters.

Chris Grayling, Ken Clarke’s robust  successor, would pull out of the ECHR in a heartbeat. But the realities of  coalition mean that the Lib Dems won’t let him.

And if prisoners do get the vote, will we see  politicians campaigning in jails at the next election? ‘Oi, Fletch, I’ve just  heard that Nick Clegg’s canvassing at Slade this afternoon.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-2443214/Who-going-vote-Fletch-If-prisoners-vote-politicians-campaigning-jails-election.html#ixzz2gjdrXyuq Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.