The main purpose of Chrysalis is to promote Human Rights within France and campaign to have these rights listed within the French Constitution in order that their respect is guaranteed.
It is politically correct in France to state that the country is a democracy which fully complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on December 10, 1948, sixty years ago.
But this is not true. It is hypocrisy.
To wit, the judgment N° 011811 rendered on January 31, 2002 by the Administrative Court of Caen which decides that "M. Lesecq invokes vainly, however stands his case ("en tout état de cause") the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights, the Preamble of the Constitution and the European Convention on Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the right of ownership, his brief must be discarded without it be needed to consider the other defences made by the General Tax Receiver..." After that was confirmed in appeal on December 26, 2002,the highest Administrative Court (Conseil d'Etat) made the decision that there was not any argument in earnest which could give a chance of success to the case (constate : "absence de moyens sérieux suscepticles de convaincre le juge de cassatiob" (in décision du bureau d'aide juridictionnelle du 12/06/2003).
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee (1886) 118 U.S. 425
This is how violations of Human Rights should be regarded in France if they were protected and guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 is binding not only upon countries which have ratified it, but also upon their citizens, bodies and organizations in order that they contribute to a better world.
Please, give your support to our campaign which is made pursuant to Articles 1st and 13 of Resolution 53/144 adopted by the UN General Assembly of December 9, 1998.
Article 1st: Anyone has the right to promote the protection and realisation of human rights at the national and international levels.
Article 13: Anyone has the right to ask for, receive and use resources in the express purpose to promote and safeguard human rights.
Thank you.
Christian Lesecq
President of Chrysalis
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Right of ownership in Strasbourg
STRASBOURG, France, Oct. 22 (UPI) -- Poland must pay out a total of $48,000 in fines to several of its citizens after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the country, officials say. In one case, the tribunal in Strasbourg, France, ruled in favor of a couple from Czestochowa, Poland, who said they were unlawfully barred from building a house on their own land because local authorities wanted to use the land otherwise, Poland Radio reported. The couple will get a $26,000 reward. And in another case, woman from Libertow, Poland, was awarded $17,000 because she has been waiting for 16 years for the Polish courts to divide her and her ex-husband's marriage assets, the broadcaster said.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Right of ownership ?
It does happen that a taxpayer may have to face wrong tax assessments, for example in cases such as heirs of a deceased person receiving claims for income tax currently due by the deceased, demand for payment of 2,900,000.00 euros in place of 2,000.00 euros, assessment of inheritance taxes on an estate which doe not exist or which is not worth enough to be taxed, etc...
I was in the latter case upon the death of my mother. Her estate was of small value, too small to be taxed at all, but they figured that its value was a dozen times more then in real.
The tax code (article L277) deals with that kind of cases. It says literally : "Deferring tax payment can be refused to the taxpayer only if he/she has not set up with the tax collector guarantees appropriate to insure collection of the debt by the Treasury."
In order to understand what that means, one has to turn the sentence over, which means actually in plain language: "The taxpayer has the right to defer payment of the tax claim by giving the tax collector guarantees appropriate to insure collection of the debt by the Treasury."
I duly lodged with the tax authorities a memorial showing that no tax was due and I asked formally to defer payment. At the same time, I gave a mortgage on a flat that I owned to the tax collector who accepted the guarantee by recording the mortgage with the real estate Register.
I thought candidly that, after having satisfied the condition set forth by the tax code about guarantee (article L277), I could wait quietly and peacefully for the ruling which had to be issued by the tax administration.
I was wrong : my furniture and office equipment were seized, taken over and sold by the tax administration for payment of the claimed inheritance tax.
Eventually, they ruled upon my memorial that no inheritance tax was due, but in the mean-time I had been deprived of my property, kind of thief by the government, which is a criminal offence committed by the agents involved.
I was in the latter case upon the death of my mother. Her estate was of small value, too small to be taxed at all, but they figured that its value was a dozen times more then in real.
The tax code (article L277) deals with that kind of cases. It says literally : "Deferring tax payment can be refused to the taxpayer only if he/she has not set up with the tax collector guarantees appropriate to insure collection of the debt by the Treasury."
In order to understand what that means, one has to turn the sentence over, which means actually in plain language: "The taxpayer has the right to defer payment of the tax claim by giving the tax collector guarantees appropriate to insure collection of the debt by the Treasury."
I duly lodged with the tax authorities a memorial showing that no tax was due and I asked formally to defer payment. At the same time, I gave a mortgage on a flat that I owned to the tax collector who accepted the guarantee by recording the mortgage with the real estate Register.
I thought candidly that, after having satisfied the condition set forth by the tax code about guarantee (article L277), I could wait quietly and peacefully for the ruling which had to be issued by the tax administration.
I was wrong : my furniture and office equipment were seized, taken over and sold by the tax administration for payment of the claimed inheritance tax.
Eventually, they ruled upon my memorial that no inheritance tax was due, but in the mean-time I had been deprived of my property, kind of thief by the government, which is a criminal offence committed by the agents involved.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) was signed after WW II to prevent existence of totalitarian states. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was created as a tool to check compliance to the Convention by governments of Member States of the Council of Europe.
The adoption of Protocol No 11, which came into force on November 1, 1998, made ECHR a full-time court, with private access by individuals and its jurisdiction mandatory. The number of applications rose from 12,700 in 1996 to 50,500 in 2006. ECHR has been unable to cope with such an increase and it has a backlog of about 90,000 cases, although ECHR has considerably increased its productivity from 72 judgments rendered in 1996 to 1,560 in 2006.
There was a switch in public opinion which started to consider ECHR as a tool for European citizens to benefit from effective guarantee for human rights, with possible indemnification in case of damage.
Protocol No 14 was meant to solve this workload problem, but it is not coming. The third Summit of Council of Europe in Warsaw in 2005 appointed a group of Wise people who reported in November 2006.
Now there has developed a crisis with regard to ECHR authority.
The public resent that 93 percent of applications are summarily rejected by ECHR. One third of all applications are dismissed on administrative grounds. The remainder is generally dismissed by a three judges filtering committee’s unmotivated decision, notified to the applicant by a mere standard letter from the clerk of the court.
Moreover, specialists are now debating about bias and/or partiality of ECHR judges, looking for predispositions and/or incentives other than the law when considering cases.
Judges are appointed by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly which will choose among three candidates presented by every Member State. Candidates are selected carefully by the State which will present them so as to fit in a frame of mind suiting the government’s purposes. After being appointed, judges may respond favourably to their government’s solicitations in order to insure their presentation for a new election at the end of their six years term, or to improve their career later. There is strong evidence that governments influence direction of the court through the selective appointment of judges.
On top of possible national bias, it seems that the judicial ideology of ECHR judges mirrors the political ideology of the governments which appointed them. The increased activism of the court may be due to appointments of activist candidates selected by countries aspiring to EU membership or by countries favourably disposed towards European integration.
Respect of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, of the Court's judgments, is a crucial element of the Council of Europe's system for the protection of human rights, rule of law and democracy and, hence, for democratic stability and European unification.
The enforcement of the judgements of ECHR is ensured by article 46 (1) of the Convention. Member States must respect the judgments and the control of the execution is placed under the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers by virtue of article 46 (2) of the Convention. This control ensures that:
- payment of any just satisfaction decided by the Court is made as ordered; - individual measures are, where necessary, taken in order to ensure that the injured party be put, as far as possible, in the same situation as she or he enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention : these measures may consist of re-opening of procedures at national level, granting of a resident permit, striking-out of criminal records, etc.; - general measures are, where necessary, adopted in order to avoid new similar violations of the Convention: these measures may consist of constitutional, legislative or regulatory amendments, a change in administrative practice or in case-law, publication and/or dissemination of the Court's judgments.
If the issue comes before a British court, it can modify the effect of any relevant statutory instrument so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment, provided that this can be done consistently withthe provisions of the applicable *primary* legislation. If conflictwith an Act of Parliament cannot be avoided, all the court can do is to certify that the conflict exists by issuing a "declaration of incompatibility" - the remedy is a matter for the government, which can bring an amending provision before Parliament using the "fasttrack" procedure laid down in the HRA.
The adoption of Protocol No 11, which came into force on November 1, 1998, made ECHR a full-time court, with private access by individuals and its jurisdiction mandatory. The number of applications rose from 12,700 in 1996 to 50,500 in 2006. ECHR has been unable to cope with such an increase and it has a backlog of about 90,000 cases, although ECHR has considerably increased its productivity from 72 judgments rendered in 1996 to 1,560 in 2006.
There was a switch in public opinion which started to consider ECHR as a tool for European citizens to benefit from effective guarantee for human rights, with possible indemnification in case of damage.
Protocol No 14 was meant to solve this workload problem, but it is not coming. The third Summit of Council of Europe in Warsaw in 2005 appointed a group of Wise people who reported in November 2006.
Now there has developed a crisis with regard to ECHR authority.
The public resent that 93 percent of applications are summarily rejected by ECHR. One third of all applications are dismissed on administrative grounds. The remainder is generally dismissed by a three judges filtering committee’s unmotivated decision, notified to the applicant by a mere standard letter from the clerk of the court.
Moreover, specialists are now debating about bias and/or partiality of ECHR judges, looking for predispositions and/or incentives other than the law when considering cases.
Judges are appointed by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly which will choose among three candidates presented by every Member State. Candidates are selected carefully by the State which will present them so as to fit in a frame of mind suiting the government’s purposes. After being appointed, judges may respond favourably to their government’s solicitations in order to insure their presentation for a new election at the end of their six years term, or to improve their career later. There is strong evidence that governments influence direction of the court through the selective appointment of judges.
On top of possible national bias, it seems that the judicial ideology of ECHR judges mirrors the political ideology of the governments which appointed them. The increased activism of the court may be due to appointments of activist candidates selected by countries aspiring to EU membership or by countries favourably disposed towards European integration.
Respect of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, of the Court's judgments, is a crucial element of the Council of Europe's system for the protection of human rights, rule of law and democracy and, hence, for democratic stability and European unification.
The enforcement of the judgements of ECHR is ensured by article 46 (1) of the Convention. Member States must respect the judgments and the control of the execution is placed under the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers by virtue of article 46 (2) of the Convention. This control ensures that:
- payment of any just satisfaction decided by the Court is made as ordered; - individual measures are, where necessary, taken in order to ensure that the injured party be put, as far as possible, in the same situation as she or he enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention : these measures may consist of re-opening of procedures at national level, granting of a resident permit, striking-out of criminal records, etc.; - general measures are, where necessary, adopted in order to avoid new similar violations of the Convention: these measures may consist of constitutional, legislative or regulatory amendments, a change in administrative practice or in case-law, publication and/or dissemination of the Court's judgments.
If the issue comes before a British court, it can modify the effect of any relevant statutory instrument so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment, provided that this can be done consistently withthe provisions of the applicable *primary* legislation. If conflictwith an Act of Parliament cannot be avoided, all the court can do is to certify that the conflict exists by issuing a "declaration of incompatibility" - the remedy is a matter for the government, which can bring an amending provision before Parliament using the "fasttrack" procedure laid down in the HRA.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
France condemned for torture
France has been condemned by the Committee Against Torture (CAT) of United Nations on May 11, 2007 (Communication N° 300/2006).
The case dealt with expulsion of a foreigner towards a country where the person ran the risk to be tortured:
…
”The Committee considers in consequence that by expulsing the applicant towards Tunisia as it happened and for the reasons which were alleged, facing the Committee before a "fait accompli, the Member State (France) not only did not act in good faith as should a party to an international treay, but also disregarded clauses 3 and 22 of the Convention.
French people may be ashamed.
In various cases violations of Human Rights may cause drama.There are many examples : lately a man committed suicide when a huissier wanted to seize his furniture. Il reçoit une lettre d'un huissier du Trésor public lui réclamant le paiement de taxes foncières pour l'année 2006 alors que l'immeuble concerné a été vendu en 2004 à un nouveau propriétaire, ce qui est formellement établi par un jugement définitif du tribunal de grande instance compétent
La lettre lui dit qu' à défaut de règlement “la saisie effective de vos meubles sera pratiquée même en votre absence dans les conditions prévues par l'article 21 de la loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991″, c'est à dire qu'en cas d'absence, l'huissier pénètrera dans les lieux avec l'assistance d'un serrurier et d'une autorité de police ou de gendarmerie.
Cette lettre viole l'article 6 de la Convention européenne de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales qui garantit le libre accès à la justice et le droit à une justice équitable, avant que les biens soient saisis et éventuellement enlevés et vendus. En effet, le droit de propriété est protégé et garanti par le Protocole N° 1 à la Convention européenne et il ne peut y être porté atteinte qu'en conformité avec une décision de justice. Mais le fisc s'arroge le droit de saisir et enlever les biens d'un contribuable sans jugement et même celui de violer son domicile.
En effet, la lettre viole aussi l'article 12 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme : “Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires dans sa vie privée… et son domicile… Toute personne a droit à la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes”. Conformément au Protocole entré en vigueur le 23 mars 1976 la Déclaration Universelle oblige les Etats signataires qui sont tenus de la respecter ; en cas de violation, des recours individuels peuvent être formés, justement comme l'a fait le tunisien expulsé vers son propre pays où il risquait la “torture”. (Je mets ici le mot torture entre guillemets car il s'agit de torture au sens de la Déclaration Universelle telle qu'interprétée par le Comité des Nations Unies et il faut savoir que selon cette interprétation la torture peut être morale.)
A supposer que mon voisin soit présent chez lui lorsque l'huissier se présente à son domicile assisté de la gendarmerie, il sera donc en droit de demander à celle-ci sa protection et la requérir de dresser procès-verval constatant le délit de concussion réprimé par l'article 432-10 du Code pénal ainsi qi'il suit :
“Le fait, par une personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique ou chargée d'une mission de service public, de recevoir, exiger ou ordonner de percevoir à titre de droits ou contributions, impôts ou taxes publics, une somme qu'elle sait ne pas être due, ou excéder ce qui est dû, est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 500.000 F. d'amende…”
Cet article n'a été appliqué qu'extrêmement rarement à défaut de plaintes. On voit mal en effet que le fisc porte plainte pour concussion à l'encontre de ses propres agents dont la mission est de faire rentrer le plus d'argent possible dans les caisses de l'Etat. Quant aux contribuables lésés, leurs plaintes sont vouées à l'échec devant la Cour de cassation en l'absence d'un pourvoi du ministère public (article 575 du Code de procédure pénale).
Mais, confrontées à des situations de ce genre, des personnes fragiles pourraient recourir à la violence, contre elle-même en se suicidant, ou contre les intervenants. Le cas s'est produit récemment en Normandie : un huissier s'étant présenté et étant reparti devant le refus de le recevoir, pour aller chercher la gendarmerie, il a trouvé en revenant avec les gendarmes la personne qui s'était suicidée.
Les violations des Droits de l'Homme en France sont beaucoup plus courantes qu'on pourrait le croire. Il n'y a pas lieu de s'en étonner puisque la Constitution ne précise pas ce qu'ils sont et ne les garantit pas. La protection et la garantie constitutionnelles des droits civiques individuels n'existe pas en France au mépris des conventions internationales qui les protègent et qui ne sont pas appliquées de bonne foi en France.
Le rapport de la France en date du 07/10/1996 au Comité des Droits de l'Homme de l'ONU :
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/691f8970d05b8bd9c1256427003d5176?Opendocument
rappelle (§ 70) que “le préambule de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 réaffirme l'attachement du peuple français à la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946. ” Mais il est faux d'attacher une valeur constitutionnelle à ces textes qui ne figurent pas dans la Constitution mais seulement dans le Préambule. Le rapport précise justement que la Constitution reconnaît l'égalité des citoyens et la liberté de conscience (art. 2), la liberté de se regrouper dans un but politique (art. 4) et la sûreté individuelle (art. 66). Rien d'autre ! D'ailleurs, une simple reconnaissance ne constitue pas une garantie.
Le rapport mentionne ensuite des droits protégés simplement par la loi et notamment la non-discrimination et le droit à la vie.
En ce qui cocerne le droit à ne pas être soumis à la torture, le rapport expose (§§ 83 et suiv.) que la France a ratifié le 18 février 1986 la Convention des Nations Unies contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants. Elle a ratifié le 9 janvier 1989 la Convention européenne pour la prévention de la torture ou des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants.
L'article 72 de la loi No 85-1407 du 30 décembre 1985 portant diverses dispositions de procédure pénale et de droit pénal introduit la règle de la compétence universelle en matière de torture (compétence des juridictions internes, y compris pour les actes commis hors du territoire français, que l'auteur de l'acte de torture soit ou non de nationalité française), conformément à l'exigence de la Convention des Nations Unies (article 689-2 du Code de procédure pénale).
Ainsi, dans le cas du tunisien expulsé, celui-ci pourrait porter plainten en France, avec constitution de partie civile ou non, s'il était soumis à des actes de torture à son retour dans son pays. On peut se demander si ce risque avait été pesé par les autorités françaises ayant ordonné l'expulsion.Je donnerai d'autres exemples ultérieurement dans ce blog des violations par la France des conventions internationales en matière de respect des Droits de l'Homme.
The case dealt with expulsion of a foreigner towards a country where the person ran the risk to be tortured:
…
”The Committee considers in consequence that by expulsing the applicant towards Tunisia as it happened and for the reasons which were alleged, facing the Committee before a "fait accompli, the Member State (France) not only did not act in good faith as should a party to an international treay, but also disregarded clauses 3 and 22 of the Convention.
French people may be ashamed.
In various cases violations of Human Rights may cause drama.There are many examples : lately a man committed suicide when a huissier wanted to seize his furniture. Il reçoit une lettre d'un huissier du Trésor public lui réclamant le paiement de taxes foncières pour l'année 2006 alors que l'immeuble concerné a été vendu en 2004 à un nouveau propriétaire, ce qui est formellement établi par un jugement définitif du tribunal de grande instance compétent
La lettre lui dit qu' à défaut de règlement “la saisie effective de vos meubles sera pratiquée même en votre absence dans les conditions prévues par l'article 21 de la loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991″, c'est à dire qu'en cas d'absence, l'huissier pénètrera dans les lieux avec l'assistance d'un serrurier et d'une autorité de police ou de gendarmerie.
Cette lettre viole l'article 6 de la Convention européenne de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales qui garantit le libre accès à la justice et le droit à une justice équitable, avant que les biens soient saisis et éventuellement enlevés et vendus. En effet, le droit de propriété est protégé et garanti par le Protocole N° 1 à la Convention européenne et il ne peut y être porté atteinte qu'en conformité avec une décision de justice. Mais le fisc s'arroge le droit de saisir et enlever les biens d'un contribuable sans jugement et même celui de violer son domicile.
En effet, la lettre viole aussi l'article 12 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme : “Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires dans sa vie privée… et son domicile… Toute personne a droit à la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes”. Conformément au Protocole entré en vigueur le 23 mars 1976 la Déclaration Universelle oblige les Etats signataires qui sont tenus de la respecter ; en cas de violation, des recours individuels peuvent être formés, justement comme l'a fait le tunisien expulsé vers son propre pays où il risquait la “torture”. (Je mets ici le mot torture entre guillemets car il s'agit de torture au sens de la Déclaration Universelle telle qu'interprétée par le Comité des Nations Unies et il faut savoir que selon cette interprétation la torture peut être morale.)
A supposer que mon voisin soit présent chez lui lorsque l'huissier se présente à son domicile assisté de la gendarmerie, il sera donc en droit de demander à celle-ci sa protection et la requérir de dresser procès-verval constatant le délit de concussion réprimé par l'article 432-10 du Code pénal ainsi qi'il suit :
“Le fait, par une personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique ou chargée d'une mission de service public, de recevoir, exiger ou ordonner de percevoir à titre de droits ou contributions, impôts ou taxes publics, une somme qu'elle sait ne pas être due, ou excéder ce qui est dû, est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 500.000 F. d'amende…”
Cet article n'a été appliqué qu'extrêmement rarement à défaut de plaintes. On voit mal en effet que le fisc porte plainte pour concussion à l'encontre de ses propres agents dont la mission est de faire rentrer le plus d'argent possible dans les caisses de l'Etat. Quant aux contribuables lésés, leurs plaintes sont vouées à l'échec devant la Cour de cassation en l'absence d'un pourvoi du ministère public (article 575 du Code de procédure pénale).
Mais, confrontées à des situations de ce genre, des personnes fragiles pourraient recourir à la violence, contre elle-même en se suicidant, ou contre les intervenants. Le cas s'est produit récemment en Normandie : un huissier s'étant présenté et étant reparti devant le refus de le recevoir, pour aller chercher la gendarmerie, il a trouvé en revenant avec les gendarmes la personne qui s'était suicidée.
Les violations des Droits de l'Homme en France sont beaucoup plus courantes qu'on pourrait le croire. Il n'y a pas lieu de s'en étonner puisque la Constitution ne précise pas ce qu'ils sont et ne les garantit pas. La protection et la garantie constitutionnelles des droits civiques individuels n'existe pas en France au mépris des conventions internationales qui les protègent et qui ne sont pas appliquées de bonne foi en France.
Le rapport de la France en date du 07/10/1996 au Comité des Droits de l'Homme de l'ONU :
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/691f8970d05b8bd9c1256427003d5176?Opendocument
rappelle (§ 70) que “le préambule de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 réaffirme l'attachement du peuple français à la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946. ” Mais il est faux d'attacher une valeur constitutionnelle à ces textes qui ne figurent pas dans la Constitution mais seulement dans le Préambule. Le rapport précise justement que la Constitution reconnaît l'égalité des citoyens et la liberté de conscience (art. 2), la liberté de se regrouper dans un but politique (art. 4) et la sûreté individuelle (art. 66). Rien d'autre ! D'ailleurs, une simple reconnaissance ne constitue pas une garantie.
Le rapport mentionne ensuite des droits protégés simplement par la loi et notamment la non-discrimination et le droit à la vie.
En ce qui cocerne le droit à ne pas être soumis à la torture, le rapport expose (§§ 83 et suiv.) que la France a ratifié le 18 février 1986 la Convention des Nations Unies contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants. Elle a ratifié le 9 janvier 1989 la Convention européenne pour la prévention de la torture ou des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants.
L'article 72 de la loi No 85-1407 du 30 décembre 1985 portant diverses dispositions de procédure pénale et de droit pénal introduit la règle de la compétence universelle en matière de torture (compétence des juridictions internes, y compris pour les actes commis hors du territoire français, que l'auteur de l'acte de torture soit ou non de nationalité française), conformément à l'exigence de la Convention des Nations Unies (article 689-2 du Code de procédure pénale).
Ainsi, dans le cas du tunisien expulsé, celui-ci pourrait porter plainten en France, avec constitution de partie civile ou non, s'il était soumis à des actes de torture à son retour dans son pays. On peut se demander si ce risque avait été pesé par les autorités françaises ayant ordonné l'expulsion.Je donnerai d'autres exemples ultérieurement dans ce blog des violations par la France des conventions internationales en matière de respect des Droits de l'Homme.
Saturday, 2 June 2007
Facts
A tax collector (“receveur”) had claimed wrongfully 130,328.00 € for payment of inheritance taxes.
An auctioneer (“commissaire-priseur”) appointed by the tax collector had taken over and away the furniture and office equipment of the taxpayer for payment of the taxes.
In the end, the tax claim was cancelled and no tax had to be paid but the furniture and office equipment were never returned to the taxpayer who lost his property.
These facts are documented and evidenced by a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Versailles dated April 26, 2000 as follows:
“ He (the applicant) recalls and justifies by producing the minute of the seizure that all his furniture was seized, whereas the claim was not even challenged but did not exist; that the sale of his furniture took place on 10/22/1996 ; that he does not intend to put the functioning of the administration in cause but attempts to demonstrate the penal liability of one or several persons”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{“Il (le requérant) rappelle et justifie par la production du procès-verbal de saisie, que tous ses meubles ont été saisis, alors que la créance était non pas contestée mais inexistante ; que la vente de ses meubles a été réalisée le 22/10/1996 ; qu’il n’entend pas mettre en cause le fonctionnaire (lire : fonctionnement) de l’administration mais tente de démontrer une responsabilité pénale d’une ou plusieurs personnes ». }
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two complaints for criminal offences with civil party application (“plaintes avec constitution de partie civile”) were lodged by the applicant on September 19,%2
An auctioneer (“commissaire-priseur”) appointed by the tax collector had taken over and away the furniture and office equipment of the taxpayer for payment of the taxes.
In the end, the tax claim was cancelled and no tax had to be paid but the furniture and office equipment were never returned to the taxpayer who lost his property.
These facts are documented and evidenced by a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Versailles dated April 26, 2000 as follows:
“ He (the applicant) recalls and justifies by producing the minute of the seizure that all his furniture was seized, whereas the claim was not even challenged but did not exist; that the sale of his furniture took place on 10/22/1996 ; that he does not intend to put the functioning of the administration in cause but attempts to demonstrate the penal liability of one or several persons”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{“Il (le requérant) rappelle et justifie par la production du procès-verbal de saisie, que tous ses meubles ont été saisis, alors que la créance était non pas contestée mais inexistante ; que la vente de ses meubles a été réalisée le 22/10/1996 ; qu’il n’entend pas mettre en cause le fonctionnaire (lire : fonctionnement) de l’administration mais tente de démontrer une responsabilité pénale d’une ou plusieurs personnes ». }
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two complaints for criminal offences with civil party application (“plaintes avec constitution de partie civile”) were lodged by the applicant on September 19,%2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
