auf Deutsch: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/030310bvg.htm
Walter Keim, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Torshaugv. 2 C
N-7020 Trondheim, 10. March 2003
Federal Constitutional Court
P.o. box 1771
File reference AR 8121/01 Regierungsdirektor Dr. Hiegert
No Right to Fair Answer
Dear Dr. Hiegert, Dear Mr. Haag,
thank you for your letter of 21. May 2002 http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/020521bvg.pdf .
Unfortunately the constitutional court did not accept the constitutional complaint of 5. May 2002 http://wkeim.bplaced.net/v klage_en.htm without giving a reason for this decision. Unfortunately Germany remains thereby a foreign body in the European " area of the liberty ".
Therefore I am no longer interested in the judicial rulings indicated in this letter.
However I now found, why Germans have no right to get a fair answer with a reason: File reference 1 BvR 1553/90 of 15.5.92 Hollerlanderschliessung: http://dejure.org/gesetze/rechtsprechung/Hollerlanderschliessung.html a ruling of the Constitutional Court.
Please communicate the price for a copy of this decision to me. I hope that this decision can be sent electronically to lower the price closest possible to European and Norwegian level i.e. no charge.
In accordance with the "law execution cost order" specified by you ("regulation over costs within the range of the administration of justice": JVKostO) from 14 February 1940 (RGBl. I P. 357) (BGBl III 363-1) http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/JVKostO.htm) there are costs.
In accordance with JVKostO § 4 (3) the collection of charges is maximally 5 DM for publication in technical periodicals. I ask to examine whether my publication can come in here because I will publish it on the Internet. 1940 one could not know that yet. While a technical periodical is read only by few, the world-wide Internet is accessible for more than 500 million humans. This can be found of all just specifying the headline in a search engine.
I ask to examine whether - in accordance with § 4 (5) (public interest) - the collection of charges it can be refrained completely.
Further more it may be normal for Germans, but for a European it is a bad surprise and a punishment, to get no fair answer to petitions (my petitions http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petitionen.htm were to a large extent for naught). Since I live abroad, I ask to examine whether costs can be zero according to JVKostO § 4 (5) i. e. court decisions on criminal matters.
Honestly said, we Europeans neither like Hitler (who probably gave the order to spread German court decisions on criminal matters free to conquered territory) nor his "Reichsminister der Justiz". I hope you make something positive out of this, fitting into our times. The times changed. When it comes to Freedom of Information the European map today looks not like 1940, but more like January 1945: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/foi-europa_16121_1.gif
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU gives Freedom of Information in Article 42, access to documents in Article 41 (2), the right to complain in Article 43 (Ombudsman) and the right to fair answers within reasonable time in Article 41 (1). The "European Codex of god Administration" defines latest two months to get an answer (Article 17).
As European my opinion is that
both you and the Federal Constitutional Court should respect the
fundamental rights of the Charter of the European Union.
Letter to the Chancellor in Germany (Bundeskanzler) on Freedom of Information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/files/kanzler-en.htm
Critique of Patients Rights in Germany : http://wkeim.bplaced.net/anklage.htm
Support freedom of information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/foi.htm#e-mail, http://wkeim.bplaced.net/petition_eu.htm
Who is responsible for the lack of freedom of information: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/I_accuse.htm
Support patients rights: http://wkeim.bplaced.net/patients.htm#e-mail
4. April 2003: Answer: Free Copy.