European Court of Justice Petition Office

  • In order to decrease the amount of paperwork needed by our aides, and to establish more clarity in petitioning the European Court of Justice, the justices have decided to establish an office to help Europeans understand what is needed to petition a case.

    Petitioner(s): Citizen/Government/Commissioner/Councillor Petitioned: Reason for Petitioning: Is this regarding constitutionality? (Y/N): Law/Section of Constitution in Question: Evidence:

    All petitions will be presented to the Court in this format and through this office ((OOC: Please keep all petitions to this thread)). From this point forward, the Court will not consider petitions that are not made through this office. The office clerk, Isabel Howe, will physically organize the cases, at which time the mandated procedure of the Court will continue.

    ((OOC: This should help with organizing your court case and giving you exactly what you would need to have to present a petition to us as well. All court cases from this point on in the Fronczyk court should use this form. It will be up to the next Courts to decide whether to use this or not.))

  • Petitioner(s):
    Commissioner of Defence and Peacekeeping Raul Morland
    Commissioner of Economics Craig Kielburger
    Commissioner of Internal Affairs Eric Hitchens
    Commissioner of Forgein Affairs: Maloulay Pisczkoszi

    Commissioner Petitioned:
    Premier Commissioner Ben Reiher

    Law in violation/in question:
    Reiher has no authority to stop the Commissioners taking their salaries.

    Is this regarding constitutionality? (Y/N):

    Reason for Petitioning?:
    Premier Commissioner Ben Reiher is not paying us. There's nothing in the Premier Commissioner's remit in the Constitution that suggests he is our direct employer (which would at least give him the authority over us). Even if he were our direct employer, denying one's employees a salary is contrary to the Universal Decleration of Human Rights.

    The laws in question are Article III of the Constitution and Article 23, Clause 3 of the UDoHR. Also Reiher's statement in the election thread that he is not paying the Commissioners.

  • Mod

    [b]Petitioner(s):[/b] Attorney General of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [b]Citizen/Government/Commissioner/Councillor Petitioned:[/b] Dr. Suzannah Beech [b]Law in violation/in question:[/b] Various laws regarding libel and slander across the United Kingdom and Europe [b]Is this regarding constitutionality? (Y/N):[/b] N [b]Reason for Petitioning?:[/b] Dr. Beech is wrongly accusing the United Kingdom of fixing a European election in which the United Kingdom did its best to be open and fair. Dr. Beech only once in nearly five days of being able to ask the BBC to allow her onto the debate stage petitioned, and none during the four days in which there was no activity from the candidates from Framptonia, The Weiss Isles, Almaniana and Harold I in petitioning the BBC. As it is a public broadcasting company, this falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of the United Kingdom, which had not received proper notification from Dr. Beech from the last question being asked of Juliet Couillard to their wrongful court petition in question.  [b]Evidence: [/b]The petition from Dr. Beech and the BBC Question Time debate. We also have proof that the BBC was not contacted by Dr. Beech herself and she had given no indication of whether or not she or the other candidates were available for the programme. Furthermore, debates are not required to have all the candidates in it, as quoted from Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution:

    - II. The nomination period shall last seven days, to be followed by a seven day period in which debates shall be held, to be followed in turn by seven days of voting.

    This passage clearly states that more than one debate is allowed to be held in any medium of choosing by any nation. This does not require that there only be one debate held by a single nation in which all participants are allowed.

  • Petitioner(s): His Majesty's Government (The United Kingdom of Davishire and Buckinghamshire)

    Citizen/Government/Commissioner/Councillor Petitioned: The Government of Crumpyville

    Law in violation/in question: Article 1 Section 1 VIII of the European Constitution, Multiple articles of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as contained within the European Constitution

    Is this regarding constitutionality? (Y/N):

    Reason for Petitioning?: A recent official press release by the "Government" of Crumpyville provides His Majtesty's Government that human rights breeches are taking place within said nation.

    Evidence: Official Government Press Release, found HERE (CLICK CLICK) and detailed further below with extracts from the press release.

    1- "Due to the fact that I am a dictator who controls all aspects of the government, I have the ability to basically control what citizens get."

    Does engage, Section XX – Right to Democratic Governance and it's parts

    2- "I have been informed that the Registered Citizens of Crumpyville believe no newspapers should be made because it is more logical to have all important news be announced via press briefings." and "I fully support this because I think it is more friendly to the environment and only important information gets told to the public"

    Does engage, Section XVIII – Freedom of Expression Part II "II. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

    3- As a result of the above, Article 1 Section 1 VIII of the Constitution of the European Union is breached.

  • Mod

    The Chief Justice has been notified and the Court convened to review the petition.

    Isabel Howe
    Clerk of the ECoJ

  • Mod

    The Court has voted to accept the petition and begin the case. All relevant parties are hereby summoned to appear in the European Court of Justice. The case shall begin upon conclusion of the ECoJ by-election.

    Ine Kelander
    Chief Justice

  • Petitioner: Mr. Graham Pickford KC, Attorney-General, Commonwealth of Gallambria

    Government Petitioned: The Government of Pravoslaviya

    Reason for Petitioning: The Appellant Petitions that the Respondent, knowingly and blatantly disregarded various sections of the European Union's Constitution when they ordered the sinking of a Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel (SIEV) resulting in the deaths of hundreds of refugees.

    Is this regarding constitutionality?: YES

    Law/Section of Constitution in Question:

    • Article I (The European Union), Section VIII
    • Article V (Declaration of Human Rights), Sections II, III, VI, VII, XIV


    In a Denes nad Pravoslaviya article dated 30/12/2016, it stated that the Pravoslaviyan Naval Forces reported that it had sunk a Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel (SIEV) under the orders of the newly elected Prime Minister Metodi Pravoslav. PM Pravoslav was also quoted, in defence of his nation's policy, saying, "this is a tragedy, yes. However, we expect it will be an effective deterrent. Thousands of people have died in the Caspian in recent years because they've got on ships believing that they will get a better life in Pravoslaviya. Now it's clear. We will no longer tolerate these boats. They will not get to Pravoslaviya. So what we will see happen in the coming months is a reduction in the number of boats - hopefully to zero - and ultimately thousands of lives being saved."

    Under the guise of a "humane action” to prevent further deaths on the high seas, the Pravoslaviyan Government continues to maintain this policy. They attack other members of the European Union who have voiced their concerns, in which they continue to argue that their course of action is justified. As such the maintenance of this Policy, we believe, is in contravention of Section VIII, Article I of the Constitution.

    The Appellant agrees, that in principle, that “... the most humane thing to do is to stop that boats trying to cross the open seas…”, however, we abhor the use of military force, to sink boats, and kill those who seek refuge.

    We believe, that through the action of enacting such policy, and utilising weapons of war against civilian maritime vessels, that the Pravoslaviyan Government, did knowingly and willing commit acts against humanity, in accordance with the above referenced Articles of the Constitution.

    To remedy this, and to prevent further ill-treatments of refugees, we ask fervently, for the European Court of Justice, of the following:

    • Investigate any and all reports of Human Rights Abuses in Pravoslaviya;
    • To provide a legal basis for, the deployment of Human Rights Inspectors from the EU Office of Internal Affairs to Pravoslaviya;
    • To provide a legal basis for, opposing nations, to establish and enforce embargoes and sanctions against Pravoslaviya, until such time the initiating nation is satisfied that improvements toward the intake and processing of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers have been made.
    • To establish recourse between the European Union's legal community, to create avenues toward the investigation and prosecution of those involved, for Crimes against Humanity.

  • Admin

    @Gallambria @Pravoslaviya

    The Court has voted (Justices BEAUFORT, DANCE, ELIAS) to accept the case, which will start on 17th January. Justice ELIAS will recuse herself for this case.

  • Petitioner: Mr. Graham Pickford KC, Attorney-General, Commonwealth of Gallambria

    Body Petitioning: European Court of Justice

    Reason for Petitioning: The Government of Gallambria, is petitioning the European Court of Justice, to suspend or postpone, the current round of elections for Justices, until such time as the current case(s) [Gallambria v Pravoslaviya] have had judgements and opinions passed down. We are concerned that the Court has failed to meet its responsibilities in delivering a timely and fair trial for the respondent government. As such, we ask the Court to consider this request.

  • The European Court of Justice has voted to deny your request;

    (DENY: Kelander, Dance) (Absent: Valera)

  • Petitioner: Government of the Federal Republic of Derecta, Office of Collaboration with the E.U.

    Body petitioned: European Court of Justice

    Reason for petitioning: We are concerned about the usual procedure of dismissing unsettled cases after the new ECoJ Justices are elected. We hereby petition that the case "Gallambria vs. Pravoslaviya" be resolved by the next elected justices. With these means, we ask the Court to take this request into consideration.

  • The European Court of Justice has voted to deny your request; once a case has begun a hearing the current court must hear it in entirity. It goes against the constitutional rights of the defend to order another trial heard by another court. This violates their right to not be subjected to double jeopardy, which is why this 'usual procedure' has been precedent in the European Court of Justice for years now.

    (DENY: Kelander, Dance) (Absent: Valera)

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.