“Every Person whose case must be judged in judicial proceedings has the right to an (…) independent and impartial court.” It says So in the Federal Constitution and, mutatis mutandis, also in the European Convention on human rights. And this claim, Ludwig A. Minelli, soon to be 87-year-old founder and President of the General Secretary of Dignitas, looks, hurt.
Brief history: In March 2015, in the run-up to the councillor elections a Flyer that criticized the then-CVP-candidate Silvia Steiner is not available in all 745’247 households of the Canton of Zurich. The Committee, which was behind the Flyer, was his critical attitude to euthanasia, a thorn in the eye.
According to a criminal complaint condemned
in Addition, the talk of a “clouded biography was”. Steiner filed a criminal report. The former Prosecutor delivered a sentence in the Flyer for the defamatory, namely: “An affair to drunk driving, which went to her former husband, led after just three years of their expulsion from the city of Zurich police Department.”
in fact, the district court of Zurich Minelli sentenced in April last year for defamation to a conditional monetary penalty of 150 daily rates of 260 francs (39’000 Swiss francs), as well as an unconditional buses of 9000 francs. In addition, he was sentenced to the Acquisition of all costs and a satisfaction of a total of 17’000 Swiss francs.
Minelli had a sign up on his lawyer, appeal against the judgment and explain the procedure against him was set. Because the court was not independent. Why is that? Steiner was at that time part of the civic 5-Tickets have been, which had been supported by the SVP, FDP and CVP.
the judges were drawn up by parties and later proposed for re-election. In addition, the judge must deliver to the parties money. In other words: “The parties to a post that’s not yours to sell.” And the judges are themselves “of the political decision-makers-dependent”.
Entire judiciary is affected
Now, one might point out, and rightly so, that the Federal criminal court has dismissed the last of September, for the first time, provided for rejection of application in October, it is what it is required for the justification of two A4 pages. However, the Minellis lawyer held a “new relevance”.
recently, a SVP, had been attacked-a Federal judge from his own party and with the deselection was threatened, because he gave the casting vote to ensure that data may be released to 40’000 UBS accounts in France. The show the dependence of the judges. And because of this Problem, the dependence, are at all levels of Jurisdiction, bring it to nothing, to transfer the defamation case Minelli-Steiner another court.
The normal case would be that the appellate court cancels the hearing against the Federal criminal court is not justified, once again, why it feels uneasy, the decision to wait, and after the rejection of the recusal request, the hearing of the appeal by results. This approach would also be useful because the Supreme court allowed the cases by the bias application no decision more.
defamation denied
however, Because Minelli was agreed, continued the hearing of the appeal with the pleadings of the parties, without in the end a verdict was reached. Minelli was even known that he does not take the distribution of Flyers is the responsibility of the Text come but from him, and he had no idea who formulated the controversial sentence. His lawyer said the sentence was defamatory, but only “politically pointed”.
The verdict is delivered – if it is to the extent that – the parties in writing.
Created: 12.11.2019, 18:06 PM
