EXCLUSIV/SRI, ICCJ, CA BUCURESTI AU PRIMIT UN CADOU “OTRAVIT” DE LA CEDO

0
144

Pentru cei interesati, iata ceva ce poate pentru unii indica modul in care s-a aplicat protocolul SRI – CSM, intre SRI-IJ intr-o speta clara, adica in procesul col  SRI, Ion Dedu in contencios admnistrativ!

Reamintim ca, ziarul Incisiv de Prahova a dezvaluit in exclusivitate ilegalitatile grave savarsite asupra ofiterului superior SRI, Ion Dedu, ilegalitati savarsite de catre Florian Coldea deoarece ofiterul a avut curajul sa il atentioneze pe generalul de “tinichea” ca incalca drepturile si libertatile cetatenilor. Col Ion Dedu a fost ejectat ilegal din SRI iar in instantele din Romania a avut parte de  procese inechitabile, procese derulate in baza renumitelor protocoale toxice.

Dupa cca 3 ani de zile, CEDO someaza Guvernul Romaniei sa raspunda de ce ofiterul SRI nu a avut parte de un proces echitabil si de acces la documentele din dosar secretizate de SRI in mod ilegal.

Daca Guvernul Romaniei tot se lupta cu “statul paralel”  atunci ar trebui sa raspunda sincer acestor solicitari si in aproape opt luni de zile vom asista la o premiera: SRI condamnat de CEDO!

Communicated on 25 November 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 56397/15
Ion DEDU
against Romania
lodged on 6 November 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application originated in disciplinary proceedings which were opened against the applicant by the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informații – SRI). In particular, the applicant alleged that by taking and enforcing the decision to consign him, the authorities breached, respectively, his rights to liberty and to freedom of movement provided for by Articles 5 § 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 because the measure was unlawful and/or did not pursue a legitimate aim, and/or the courts failed to examine whether it was proportionate. He also alleged that the proceedings he was involved in were unfair and breached his rights guaranteed by Article 6 because (i) the courts lacked impartiality as they were composed of judges which were vetted by SRI during the procedure which must be followed in order to obtain ORNISS certificates; (ii) during the court proceedings neither the applicant, nor his chosen legal representative had access to essential evidence which was classified and which could be used for his defence; and (iii) the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their judgments with regard to his arguments concerning his consignment. He further alleged that (i) the unlawful decision to consign him also at his home for nine days; and (ii) the fact that he was denied access to the orders issued against him and the documents grounding the said orders which concerned him directly amounted to a breach of his right to private and family life provided for by Article 8. Lastly, the applicant alleged that the domestic proceedings did not provide him with an effective remedy for the alleged breaches of his Convention rights in breach of Article 13.

 

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

  1. Did the disciplinary sanction of consignment imposed on the applicant amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention or to an interference with his right to freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 5 or 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see De Tomasso v. Italy [GC] no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017)?
  2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention with regard to the examination of his case? In particular, did the court proceedings respect the principle of equality of arms and of adversarial proceedings in so far as neither the applicant, nor his chosen legal representative had access to the classified documents and evidence, including the SRI’s answer to his questions, which could be used for his defence (see, mutatis mutandis, Regner v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no. 35289/11, 19 September 2017)? Also, were the domestic courts impartial in view of the fact that they were composed of judges who were vetted by SRI during the procedure which had to be followed in order to obtain the necessary security clearance in order to be allowed access to classified documents? Lastly, did the domestic courts provide reasons for their judgments, particularly with regard to the applicant’s arguments concerning his consignment (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004)?
  3. Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life in view of the fact (i) that he was prohibited from leaving his home for a significant part of the day during his consignment; and (ii) that during the court proceedings he was denied access to documents and information concerning him directly? If so, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?
  4. Did the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant provide him with an effective remedy for his complaints, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?

Cititi o interpelare din 2014 si raspunsul IJ (inspectiei judiciare) comunicat de catre CSM prin MJ unui senator.
Cine are rabdare sa citeasca raspunsul IJ poate va constata ingerinta disimulata, evident, a SRI in procesul col Ion Dedu…si cum de nu a putut obtine adevarul in speta data prin hotararile judecatoresti date la toate nivelurile instantelor de judecata din Romania!

N.R – De remarcat este si faptul ca aceste ingerinte disinulate s-au constatat si in cazul altor ofiteri SRI (Adrian Radu, Florea Daniel, Gulianu Florian, etc). Cerasela N.

https://www.senat.ro/PDFIntrebari/Marian%20V%202201%20c.pdf

https://www.senat.ro/PDFInt…/Raspuns%20M%20Valer%202201c.pdf

https://www.senat.ro/…/R%20la%2016%2006%20Valer%20M%202201%…

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-188656%22%5D%7D

Articolul EXCLUSIV/SRI, ICCJ, CA BUCURESTI AU PRIMIT UN CADOU “OTRAVIT” DE LA CEDO apare prima dată în Ziarul Incisiv de Prahova.

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here