Guitar Hero Usb Dongle

membership in the cooperative hunt against the will of the Property owner does not violate human rights

Dominik Storr

The last word has not been said

The smaller chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Today, on 01/20/2011, handed down a sentence for the Federal Republic of Germany: D ie compulsory membership in a German hunting association is not contrary to human rights. means this: hunters may continue on private property against the will the owner of the hunting exercise.

lawyer Günter Herrmann Stutensee / Baden-Württemberg is the owner of two forest sites in Rhineland-Palatinate. Thus it is automatically a member of a hunting cooperative - to withdraw against his will and without the possibility of cooperative hunting. Against this he has before the German administrative courts and before the Federal Constitutional Court complained unsuccessfully, so he called in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights. After all, the animal and nature lover not agree with his belief that hunters enter his land against his will in order to Animals . Kill In his complaint he alleged violations of rights guaranteed in the Convention on Human Rights Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 11 (freedom of association), article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

sudden change of the European Court

, the European Court of Human Rights, the complaint as of today, while being in 1999 in a case brought against France and 2007 in the case of decided action against Luxembourg that the forced Membership of property owners in hunting associations of human rights violation.

Why this change of heart? It is in the business with the German forest, play in the hunting cooperatives be organized in a central role in a lot of money. Not for nothing is sitting Philipp Freiherr von Guttenberg and the German Forestry Council . "Against these business lobby to get in Germany and apparently also in non-Europe," said lawyer Dominique Storr, who represents several property owners in this matter. "Today's decision Strasbourg is a slap in the face of German property owners that are arbitrarily treated differently by the Court as the property owners in France and Luxembourg. This way is the belief of the Germans lost to a neutral European Court of Justice and rule of law in a common Europe, "said the lawyer.

Autumnal forest (c) Friedrich Boehringer

entirely surprising decision

The smaller chamber of the European Court today ruled completely by surprise, unlike in Luxembourg and France. "This leads to the paradoxical result that, on the one side of the border with France and Luxembourg, namely Germany, the human rights of property owners are not infringed, and on the other side of the border, namely in France and Luxembourg, which human rights are violated. This is an absolutely contradictory decision, which lacks any logic, because the facts are identical. Apparently the pressure of the German lobby was simply too big, "said Lawyer Storr.

The last word has not yet

The German complainant is now the Grand Chamber at the European Court of Justice and point out the conflicting case law of the small chambers. The last word is not spoken so far.

the verdict