Even wat anders maar minstens net zo nodig.
Een briefje aan Mr. Andreas Stein, werkzaam bij het Directoraat Generaal Justitie en Consumenten van de Europese Commissie.
In het Engels.
Open letter to :
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS
Directorate A: Civil and commercial justice
Unit A.1 : Civil justice
Head of Unit : Mr. Andreas Stein
Drachten, 18th of December 2017.
Dear Mr. Stein,
Your answer illustrates perfectly why so many people – particularly those who have had direct dealings and have sought your help with European matters – are fed up with the EU. The arrogance astonishes me.
I quote from your letter:
“Finally, I would like to inform you that, according to the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for the Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, and having extensively considered your case, the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers will henceforth discontinue corresponding with you on this subject, as all relevant issues have been considered.”
The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour from which you selectively quote also states: “The public legitimately expects quality service and an administration that is open, accessible and properly run.”
It cannot be called quality service if you refuse to give answer to my question, not by explicitely refusing, but just by not giving the answer and ignoring the valid substance of the question.
My question was quite simple:
Will the EU either start an infringement procedure against the Czech Republic, or get me the calculation of Czech court to which they and you refer to and which is a legal requirement. No such calculation exists, as you know. Purely by the very fact that the Czech Court claims that two different inputs into the formula both result in the same output, it is self-evident that such a calculation doesn’t exist in algebra, let alone economically.
You refused to start an infringement procedure against the Czech Republic. This is your answer on behalf of the EU – so in this case, please, send me the calculation, so I can understand your decision and the decision of the Czech Court.
Instead, you generated a lot of blabla about the need for a detailed calculation, which isn’t needed according your interpretation of the 2007 Protocol of the Hague.This may be the case – and I am sure the ECJ would happily crlarify this on behalf of citizens (not States) across the EU. Either way, there should be a calculation. In your letter you yourself agree!
Quoting from your letter :
”Concerning your claim of infringement of Article 14 of the 2007 Hague Protocol, it is the position of the Commission that while Article 14 does indeed represent a substantive rule imposing on the courts of the Member States the obligation to consider the needs of the creditor and the resources of the debtor, even if the national law of the Member State in question proscribed otherwise, it does not impose the obligation to provide a detailed calculation of the maintenance obligation as part of the decision. Indeed, the Protocol remains silent not only on how the decision on maintenance should reflect the consideration of the creditor’s resources, but also on how that consideration is to impact the calculation itself.”
So obvious you do admit there should be a calculation ! Not detailed but a calculation.
From the Protocol :
Article 11 Scope of the applicable law
The law applicable to the maintenance obligation shall determine inter alia –
c. the basis for calculation of the amount of maintenance, and indexation;
This also shows a calculation should be present, not determinig the details indeed.
But I assume a basic calculation such as “A minus B results in C” should be at least what has to be provided, being A my income, B my costs of living and C the maximum amount of maintenance to be paid.
From the numbers I have available this results in following calculation made by the Czech courts:
€1700 minus €2500 results in €520
Grammatical : 1700 – 2500 = 520
Whereas €1700 was my income, €2500 my cost of living (as determined by Dutch Court in a detailed calculation), and €520 is the maintenance which I am able to pay according Czech Courts.
The Dutch Court made a detailed calculation, so yes there are member states (but not the Czech Republic) which do provide detailed calculations.
So, every fool will understand some numbers are wrong in this calculation, and for this reason I requested from the Czech Court a calculation. What numbers are they using? Is there anything wrong with my request? Is it not my right as a citizen to have due process and rule of law apply.
Frankly, I had really hope you, as a representative of the EU would be appalled by such blatant and deliberate ignorance of the law in a member state. You ought to be.
How difficult it can be for you to ask Czech Courts to provide this basic calculation or whatever calculation they’ve made? What is blocking you from making this request?
I know there is no calculation made, so as a result you have indeed to start an infringement procedure against the country of your boss, Ms Jourová, which probably is “not the done thing”, but I’m not interested in that. Either the calculation is provided or the infringement procedure is initiated. I am not asking for anything more.
The possible conflict of interest of Ms Jourova should, if anything, have the effect of ensuring an infringement is launched, to show the citizens of the EU that national interests and state interest do not rule the EU’s actions.
As the Czech Courts refuse to give this to me, even when a helpful Czech judge did help me with requesting this from his colleagues, I have no option than to ask you.
Furthermore, keeping in mind the “quality service” requirement, I don’t see any, or just a limited and wrong, reaction from your side on the motivation of the Czech Court.
There are 3 periodes, respectively P1, P2, P3
P1 – I live in NL, work in NL, Dutch court determined maintenance duties
P2 – I do live in NL, jobless, out of my control, CZ court determines maintenance duties (EC4/2009)
P3 – I do live and work in CZ, CZ court determines maintenance
It goes wrong in P2 (Period 2).
The Civil Court in Czech Republic refused to reduce the maintenance from P1 to P2 – even though my income was reduced by 50%! – , and in P3 my income was even lower. However, at present P3 is not relevant.
The maintenance duty for P2 belongs the income during P2 and my costs during P2. This is logical.
Below the original text in Czech language :
Up to 30.9.2010 the farther received Dutch social support, the height of which allows him to pay maintenance. The height of the support was re-calculated to Czech Crowns ca. 40.000 per month, which is above the actual income, and therefore the Court doesn’t see any reason to change maintenance in the period 15.6.2008 till 30.9.2010.
Remember P1, P2, P3.
Further “the height of which allows him to pay maintenance” is nowhere motivated. It’s just a statement.
This is motivation does not follow the law.
I am quoting your letter:
“Considering the facts of your case, it is clear that the even if, as you feel, limited motivation was given for each of the decisions of the Czech courts in your case, the decisions in question still consider and make reference to the periods of your employment as well as your income in determining your maintenance obligations. It is this reference that makes clear the fact that your resources were indeed considered in the course of handing down of the concerned decisions.”
However, this decision of Czech Court is a total miscarriage of justice, as the motivation is not limited but totally wrong !
Again, I quote your letter:
“However, once these matters are determined and considered it is entirely up to the national law of the Member States, in your case the Czech Republic, to determine how that consideration should impact the final calculation of the maintenance obligation, and in which form it should be referenced in the decision.
With this in mind, we repeat our position that the Commission does not detect an infringement of EU law in your case nor the possibility for a direct intervention of any other kind.”
With such a statement you are just legalizing the miscarriage of justice.
And on top of it you wrote :
“We do, however, refer to our earlier replies; in particular in advising you to make an application for the modification of the maintenance amount and the lodging of a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, if you feel it would be appropriate concerning the facts of your case.”
Changing an existing maintenance decision if there is no change in situation or new facts is a legal impossibility as you should know, So the absurd decision of Czech Court cannot be changed.
Maybe the proof of a wrong calculation would help, but as your are not supportive in providing this there is no way to change the decision.
As to your reference to the ECHR, why to advise me to go there if, according DG Justice, everything is fine?
Further, you undoubtfully know that there is a 6 month period for ECHR which already exceeded. I don’t understand that you in your position are giving this type of advice. If I followed your advice, it would cause me a lot of costs, without any prospect of success.
Also, it is clear that an infringement proceeding will rectify the matter across Europe for other victims of the more questionable jurisdictions which form part of the EU and your remit. Going to the ECHR has a 1/50 chance of even being heard, and a 1/100 chance of actually achieving anything in my case. The offs of it achieving anything that changes the way the Czech Republic (and other states) fail to apply by European and Czech law is almost non-existent.
Aren’t the European Union and its institutions there to improve the lives of all citizens? Isn’t that your job?
And finally according to the Code of Behaviour to which you referred:
“Where appropriate, decisions should refer to the possibility of starting judicial proceedings and/or of lodging a complaint with the European Ombudsman in accordance with Article 230 or 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.“
Although you didn’t mention it, please rest assured, I will lodge a complaint against your decision!
a dutch citizen fighting for his rights
Not paying maintenance, even if the Civil Court’s decision on maintenance is ridiculous, is a criminal act in the Czech Republic. The above mentioned decision of Czech court and the refusal of DG Justice to act properly resulted in a 1 year sentence ! With same crap motivation, still refusing to show any type of calculation which shows my possibilities. In criminal procedure !