European Court of Human Rights

I don't understand why in 2025 almost 2026 you need to send by post office your complain to CEDO? normally should be electronic online in 2025, for example if i want to fill in a complain i don't have a printer at home to download the document to fil in the document and after to print it out and to send it by post office, this is crazy, so what cai i do in this situation?

18.09.2025 is going down as a day representing the absolute uselessness of the european Court of Human Rights. Not only was my Case (application no. 20307/25) declined with the simple reason of not finding any violation by Sweden, but the Court did sentenced Russia, which has left the convention, to a payment in Euros in 6 cases, which Russia not only won't be willingly paying, but isn't even able to pay because of its current assets frozen by the EU. Simply told: the court rejects serious applications, against european countries who violated the human rights, but convicts countries who not only don't follow, but can't even follow its judgements. 👏👏👏 Bravo 👏👏👏 You Judges succeeded in becoming real Clowns and turn the Court into a Circus with the only purpose to entertain your audience. Your decisions and judgements don't contribute with anything in practicallity. 👏👏👏 Bravo 👏👏👏

I asked the European Court of Human Rights for a copy of my own submission, to confirm what they had actually received. My concern is justified: the postage time from the Czech Republic to the Court was over one month, which leaves ample opportunity for interference or mishandling. Despite this, the Court refused my request. After dedicating significant time and effort to preparing the application, I simply wanted to verify that my words and arguments were faithfully transmitted and received. Without that confirmation, I cannot be sure that my case was fairly represented. This refusal illustrates how the Court’s administrative processes can feel cold, rigid, and ultimately inhumane. The Court exists to defend human rights, but its registry denies individuals the most basic transparency about their own submissions. In doing so, it undermines the very trust on which the Court’s authority depends.

The building is located on the eastern corner of the water intersection, where the Ill river is crossed by the Canal de la Marne au Rhin. The court was formerly located in a building located just across the canal, which was built in 1965 and designed by Bertrand Monnet, J. Apriell and Papillard. They also, due to the nature of the court, wanted to make it more welcoming and open rather than fortress-like design of the Council of Europe . The original design was stretched as, during design, the demand for office space grew by 50% due to the fall of communism in the east. Personally, it looks like factory or some chemical company and lacks the grandeur that makes it clear that it stands for European Human rights. There are some protest posters around the building that gives some food for thought.

This is intended for the officials of the DS who collect the salary, they are a useless institution within the EU, like the EU itself, aimed at destroying the European values ​​of people and their way of life. President Van der ..... is a figure of the Freemasons who lead the world and she got her second mandate through deception and intrigue, as is the leadership, so are the officials.

YOU are against the human rights of all people born in Europe. Why don't you protect our rights to live a life without the fear of those who you protect. First protect the rights of european indigenous people, us, who live here for millennials. We have nowhere to flee. We are hunted in all other countries. Our human rights are being mistreated.

I wish to report a deeply concerning lack of responsiveness and procedural fairness regarding my application (No. 27892/24) to the European Court of Human Rights. The application was rejected on 13 December 2024 in a single judge formation by Judge Alain Chablais, citing non-exhaustion of domestic remedies – a justification contradicted by the facts presented, namely the denial of my right to appeal by the domestic court. My subsequent formal request for clarification (16/01/25) was summarily dismissed by the Legal Secretariat with a standard letter that neither addressed the substantive issue nor provided the requested clarification. A further formal complaint and request for clarification addressed directly to President Marko Bošnjak on 14/03/25, detailing these points and requesting to reopen the case due to the lack of valid justification, has remained unanswered, a fact that I deem extremely disrespectful towards a European citizen who has suffered a violation of his human rights. The ECHR is funded by European taxpayers and has a fundamental duty to uphold human rights with transparency and due diligence. Rejecting applications without clear, reasoned justification and failing to respond to legitimate requests for clarification, particularly from the President's office, represents a serious institutional failing. This undermines the very purpose of the Court and the trust citizens place in it. This lack of accountability is unacceptable. I remain hopeful that the Court will address these procedural shortcomings and provide the review my appeal deserves. Should this occur, demonstrating a genuine commitment to the ethical and funding principles of ECHR and the reason of the existence of such a Court dedicated to human rights, I would gladly reconsider the negative assessment prompted by its prior omissions and revise this public review accordingly.

The ECHR—are you not seeing Germany destroy the rights of minorities? Are you turning a blind eye to the violation of the right to a fair trial? Higher courts in Germany do not have transcripts of records, and this is used to constantly pervert justice against minorities in Germany, as some judges alter, manipulate, and omit key witness statements. Even if lawyers write to the court asking for clarification on why the facts were changed, they are not entitled to a response. The revision in the Oberlandesgericht presumes the facts of the lower courts are accurate, except where there are legal errors. So I am asking you: How can defendants protect their rights to a fair trial? How can a defendant prove what was said in court? How? Germany constantly does this, and yet no rulings of this nature have been accepted. You only punish smaller nations, but when countries like Germany deny individuals a fair trial, you protect Germany. You are the problem. You are the reason why minorities suffer. You are the reason why Germany continually infringes on human rights. Do you have a collaboration with Germany? They are destroying the rights of individuals, and you keep mute.