The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

Is the German Judiciary independent?

Many doubt it. Mostly for a good reason.

Such doubts have overcome a judge from the administrative court in Wiesbaden that he has submitted this question to the European Court of Justice in Brussels (EuGH) for decision. The judge does not seem to believe in the constitutionally codified independence of the judges and the courts in Germany.

Background:

As early as April 2019, the European Court of Justice - unnoticed by most - made a statement on the independence of German public prosecutors - they denied their "independence." Because: German public prosecutors are dependent - e.g., on instructions of the executive branch, i.e., their highest boss, the respective minister of justice - laid down in the court constitution law. Moreover, that has nothing more to do with the independence of a public prosecutor, according to Europe's highest judges. That is why German public prosecutors can no longer enforce European arrest warrants in other EU countries. Because for lack of independence, they do not comply with European law (Az: C 508/18, C 82/19, C 509/18).

Many examples, which were documented by us, always made that clear:

www.ansTageslicht.de/Rocker , www.ansTageslicht.de/Mollath www.ansTageslicht.de/HaraldFriedrich , www.ansTageslicht.de/KW , www.ansTageslicht.de/RG , www.ansTageslicht.de/Theisen , www.ansTageslicht.de/DZBank , www.ansTageslicht.de/Zahnschmerz

However, now it is official, i.e., EU official.

The file question:

Now it concerns the European application of the law, which must decide on the following question:

"Is the referring court an independent and impartial court? so the reference resolution of the Wiesbadener of the administrative judge (Az: 6 K 1016/15).

According to European requirements, a "court" must

• be autonomous and hierarchically independent in order to
• to be able to decide impartially.

Something the referring judge does not regard as a given because, in this country, there would be "only functional judicial independence, but not institutional independence of the courts."

He argues:

• Judges are not appointed by an independent institution (e.g., Federal President), but by the respective justice ministers
• They also decide on promotion.
• The ministry is also responsible for "judging" a judge.

In other words, the executive 'controls' the judiciary. And not vice versa, since there are things such as instructions and indirect influencing, which can steer the decisions of judges. "The mere danger of political influence on the courts (by equipment, personnel allocation by the Ministry of Justice) can cause a danger of the influence on the decisions of the courts and their independent perception of their tasks to impair.

For example, this could generate "anticipatory obedience," e.g., through alleged pressure to get things done, which is exercised, for example, through "stress statistics (Pebbsy) operated by the ministry."

In summary:

The executive decides on a judicial career and its control. Whoever adapts to the currently desired mainstream has good chances — also, vice versa.

Should the ECJ retain its previous criteria for "independence," as it did with the question of the independence of public prosecutors, then its vote is - actually - predictable. The case number at the ECJ is C 272/19.

Further information can be found here:

• https://www.lto.de/recht/justiz/j/vg-wiesbaden-6k101615-vorabentscheidung-eugh-vorlage-unabhaengigkeit-gerichte-justiz/

• https://verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/pressemitteilungen/verwaltungsgericht-wiesbaden-legt-eugh-fragen-zu-datenschutz-und-richterlicher

The "DokZentrum ansTageslicht.de" will 'stay tuned' for further progress,  and will report about any possibly necessary consequences.

International Criminal Court, The Hague on Fume Events

The NGO aerotoxic.org, London, with its chairman, former airline pilot trainer Capt John HOYTE, wrote together with aerotoxicteam.com run by former purser Bearnairdine BEAUMONT, Switzerland, to the International Criminal Court (October 2018) filing a complaint in the matter of "Fume Events", as a crime against humanity. Thousands of people, pilots and flight attendants and especially frequent flyers are affected. Both institutions estimate that at least 1 million people are affected.

They submitted numerous documents and evidence.

The prosecutor at the criminal court has replied now, stating that since the definition of their area of responsibility is very narrowly defined, she does not see herself in a position to do anything in this case. However: one would archive the considerable amount of information. If new findings and evidence were to lead to a change in the previous view, it would not be impossible to re-examine the problem as a triggering reason for an investigation.

You can read the official response of the International Criminal Court here.

Social Court Giessen (SG)

We have just learned that a ruling from the SG Giessen has rejected the complaint of a Lufthansa flight attendant who claimed the health consequences of a fume event. The court acknowledges the scientific background and speaks of "smells" which the judges regard as a "fume event" but on the other hand say that the toxic effect of the alleged „smell“ is not fully proven.

From the fact that the ruling has not yet been finalised and the reasons for the ruling have not yet been given, it can be assumed that the plaintiff intends to appeal.

We do not know more for the time being, but are investigating.

Judgement of the Labour Court Cologne

It is now known that two flight attendants who claim to have suffered injury to their health because they were exposed to cabin air contamination for 45 minutes, lost their case before the Labour Court in Cologne: They claimed damages because their airline acted "intentionally". In concrete terms, such an incident had even occurred the day before.

The airline and the judges argued that the aircraft operator subsequently undertook a technical review and therefore no longer could expect that a new incident would occur the next day. Therefore, intent could be excluded and only in such cases the employer could be held liable according to § 104 SGB VII.

Therefore, the court did not have to examine whether there was a scientifically justified connection at all.

We are currently trying to find out what exactly the technical examination consisted off, e.g. whether the manufacturer’s instructions in the operating manual were followed, or whether - as is usually the case - it was just a small mini-check.

If there are clear recommendations or instructions in the operating manual but no action has been taken, the argument "no intent" would be untenable.

Occupational Diseases in Court: Only 10% of all cases are successful

Last year the Federal Government had „no idea“ when they answered the LEFT Party (printed matter 18/13543) "due to lack of statistic data by the DGUV", regarding the question how many cases exist that have actually received occupational ill health acknowledgment before the Federal Social Court, thus were successful,  or failed.

Now, all of a sudden, the Federal Government, in the person of Parliamentary State Secretary (BMAS), Ms Kerstin GRIESE (SPD) announced in an answer to the Greens (printed matter 19/4093 - see entry v. 18.9.):

"For decades the decisions of the accident insurance institutions have been confirmed in about 90% of the Federal Social Court proceedings. From this "the quality of the experts employed and the administrative procedures" can be seen.

We have a somewhat different view of things, as we have documented in many examples (www.ansTageslicht.de/Letzel; www.ansTageslicht.de/Lehnert; www.ansTageslicht.de/BK1317 etc.).

We have therefore added  thefollowing section to the chapter "What can one do?" (WKMT): "In Court". There you will find information on how to proceed when you wish to reject an expert, or his expert opinion because of "bad expertise“,  and if the judge refuses this, how to reject the judge. In the latter case, it is not the "bias" that is important, but the potential "concern of bias".

That this does not work in most cases is due to the fact that neither the judges nor most lawyers are familiar with the right of bias.

We can help and give tips & hints: at www.ansTageslicht.de/WKMT