RESULTS:

alt text

Congratulations to Chief Justice Benjamin STEYN (Inimicus), as well as Justices Svenson, Bourgeon, López Guerra, Athlablomazen! Commiserations to everyone else who ran for the court this election. See you all in a few months!

Nominations are now closed. The nominees for the European Court of Justice are thus:

Lygafaz ATHLABLOMAZEN (Ruthund)
Clarisse BOURGEON (Montenbourg)
Benitio LAVITSKY (Gadalland and Aspern)
Luis LÓPEZ GUERRA (Spain)
Judy SCHEINDLIN (United Duchies)
Benjamin STEYN (Inimicus)
Frans SVENSON (Mennrimiak)

Advocate Kim Oh Soo (김오수), thank you for your rebuttal statement.

The defendant, the Government of the @Icholasen you may now deliver your rebuttal statement when ready. After we will proceed with questions from the court.

Clarisse Bourgeon
Associate Justice of the ECoJ

Due to the fact there was only five candidates, everyone who was nominated shall have a seat on the court for the following term, congratulations to everyone.

Therefore the election and all the preferences shall be used to determine the Chief Justice of the Court, as there were twelve votes a candidate must reach 7 votes minimum to be elected Chief Justice in the first round.

RESULTS:
Andreas EKKA (Fremet) - 8 Votes
Clarisse Renaldi BOURGEON (Montenbourg)- 2 Votes
Robert RINDER (Icholasen)- 1 Vote
Benjamin STEYN (Inimicus)- 1 Vote

Therefore, I declare Andreas Ekka of Fremet dutifully elected as Chief Justice of the European Court of Justice!

alt text

Candidate Name: Judge Rinder
Home Nation: [Free] Icholasen
Incumbent? (Y/N): No
Biography:

Prince Tommy's personal lawyer ECoJ Chief Justice TV judge

The European Court of Justice after much deliberation has moved forward with an opinion on the case of ICS Church v. Alkharya. The ICS Church is correct the Constitution states that Europeans have the right of Freedom of religion and freedom to manifest his or her belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance provided that they do not violate the rights of others. Europeans hold the right that is inalienable to them to worship freely and safely as they feel. However, the right is held to the individual European as a person not an organization. NGO are bodies that are not well clarified as having rights to practice the freedom of worship and the court feels that this issue in particular is something that should be decided by the EU Council to provide answers to in their own procedures given to them through the separation of powers provided in the Constitution.

The Government of Alkharya fulfilled the insurance of not hindering the right of the individual European to worship practice religion, whatever it maybe as long as it does not violate the rights of others. Although, the decision in the law being review from the Government of Alkharya is unusual to say the least. The European Court of Justice finds no complication in it that results in it violating the principle of the individual European. The Constitution does not provide strong religious protection to NGO where it is not considered as a person under the Constitution. In addition, the EU Constitution gives the member-states of the EU the inherent powers to pass legislation that will ensure that no only is the right of religion in the individual protected but that the individual does not use it to be oppressive to others. Whether the question of if the law is constitutional within Alkharya itself is a question that will be reverted back to the supreme Judicial branch of the Republic of Alkharya. Mr. Kayihan was correct in stating that the law that was question in this is legal as it provides equal treatment to all religious institutions. Nations hold the right to pass and enforce laws to protect but also provide religious rights as mentioned earlier, but they have the right to ensure that religion does not abuse the rights that it holds by oppresives others that disagree with their point of view.

And so, through a majority vote, the European Court of Justice rules the case IN FAVOR of the Government of Alkharya.

And so the court is hereby adjorned with the case finished.

Chief Justice Jack McCoy

Request to drop the case from Prosecution is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

Jack McCoy
Chief Justice of the ECOJ

Voting is over

Turnout was 12 and results are as follows:

alt text

Congratulations to Chief Justice McCoy, and Justices Athlablomazen, Gulbiye, Lorenzen, and Vajda. Commiserations to Rudi Dzhulyanov.

Candidate Name: Sven Lorenzen
Home Nation: The Archrepublic of Vayinaod
Incumbent? (Y/N): N
Biography:

Graduated in 1971 from University of Nyetthem with an Undergraduates in Law with a concentration on Constitutional Rights Received his accreditation to practice law in 1974 from Havic College of Law From 1974 to 1978 served as a clerk for Chief Justice Kóri Westerberg of the Vayinaodic Supreme Judicial Council From 1978 to 1990 served in private practice From 1990 to 2000 served as a Judge on the Nyetthem Criminal Court of Appeals From 2000 to 2003 served as the Chief Judge on the Nyetthem Superior Court of Appeals From 2003 to 2017 served as a Justice on the Supreme Judicial Council From 2019 to 2020 served as an Associate Justices on the European Court of Justice

The votes have now been tabulated, thank you for your patience. There results are thus:

alt text

Clarisse Bourgeon, Luis López Guerra, Jack McCoy, Robert Rinder and Frans Svenson are hereby elected to the European Court of Justice. Robert Rinder is hereby elected as Chief Justice of the European Court of Justice.

Congratulations to the newly elected Justices, and commiserations to the other candidates.

The new term for the Justices and Chief Justice will begin today and will run until January 19th, 2021.

FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
EUROPOLIS
2020-09-16

ANDRIES VAN HOEBEEK v. THE KEIL WORKERS’ COUNCIL

On the Writ of Certiorari granted to the APPELLANT, Andries van Hoebeek.

CONCURRING:

Andreas EKKA Luis López GUERRA

DISSENTING:
None

RECUSED:
None

Chief Justice Ekka delivering the opinion of the court.

The Kiel Workers’ Council, an entity with shared sovereignty with the EU memberstate Eastern Haane. The Appellant presented that the proceedings of their arrest and subsequent trial were in violation of provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the European Union, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, this court hereby, in recognition that the entity The Kiel Workers’ Council was created ex nihilo, nevertheless rules in favour of the APPELLANT.

The defence did not deny the testimony made by the appellant and, as such, this court is inclined to wholly accept the testimony of the individual Andreas van Hoebeek and that of the representatives of the person named.

The defence presented that the entity The Kiel Workers’ Council existed in a state of shared sovereignty with that of Eastern Haane, a memberstate of the European Union. As the nationstate Eastern Haane was a duly participating and recognised memberstate within the European Union, any entities contained within thus fall under the jurisdiction of the memberstate Eastern Haane, the European Union, and this court. The rights and protections guaranteed European citizens are universal, and respecting these rights is the duty of every memberstate. The Kiel Workers’ Council violated Section IX: Right to Habeas Corpus and Section X: Right to a Fair Trial of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article V of the Constitution of the European Union) in their failure to inform the accused of their charges, the apparent falsification of evidence, failure to hold a public trial, failure to accurately report court proceedings, and failure to provide a sufficient appeals structure within either government to ensure the rights of the accused are recognised.

The afforded the appellant were not nullified when an entity apparently separate that of the memberstate Eastern Haane’s government presented. The Kiel Workers’ Council has failed to demonstrate sufficient separation from that of the recognised memberstate central government of Eastern Haane. The Kiel Workers’ Council is, in the eyes of this court, a devolved entity of Eastern Haane.

From the Declaration of the Workers’ Council in Kiel:
"It is as a result of these abuses, these horrors, that we organize ourselves, the united workers of Kiel, into this Workers' Council, accountable to none but the workers, independent of all forces but that of the people, the workers of Kiel, created from nothing and thus dependent on nothing but the workers. We were previous to this under the heel of an oppressive state that viewed us not as people but as objects to be used, to be discarded; it is only through this organization, this workers' council, the highest manifestation of our self-liberation, that we have become human. The past is dead; we have formed ourselves into something entirely new, that has destroyed all the old, purged all the remnants, without exception, of the previous oppressive state; we have birthed ourselves."

The statement above defines the creation of the Kiel Workers’ Council ex nihilo.

From the Constitution of 2020:
“The workers' councils are created through this statement; they shall be federated units in the cantons, capable of passing all laws, so long as they do not contradict with those already passed on higher levels; at the same time, they are entrusted with the caretaking of all that which is held by the nations and the syndicates, as according to set regulations. The workers' councils that exist at this point are not abolished through this statement; they retain all that they had.”

The workers councils, including that of the Kiel Workers’ Council are federated units within devolved political units in Eastern Haane, with the ability to pass laws and implement policy as long as the named actions do not contradict with those passed at higher levels. Thus, in the recognition and acceptance of the Constitution of 2020 by the Kiel Workers’ Council, they are thereby subject to the laws of Eastern Haane, subject to the laws of the European Union, and subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Keil Workers’ Council, though it began as an independent entity, forfeited its independence when it joined the larger state of Eastern Haane under the Constitution of 2020, thereby leaving it subject to European law, as the entity Eastern Haane following the Constitution of 2020 was fulfilling its rights, duties, and privileges as a member state of the European Union, confirming its status as a state recognised by the European Union as a memberstate and as a state that asserted its own acceptance of recognition of membership in the European Union, thus leaving it subject to the laws of the European Union and its citizens guaranteed rights defined in the Constitution of the European Union.

Therefore, this Court thereby OVERTURNS the judicial ruling of the Kiel Workers’ Council and hereby orders the entities named to convene a new trial in accordance with the laws of the European Union.

REFERENCES:

CONSTITUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:

ARTICLE V. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Section I. Preamble

I. This Declaration defines the rights which all member states of the European Union must recognize all people as holding.

II. These rights are inalienable, and any person within the territorial bounds of the European Union may use this Declaration in a court of law against any infringement on these rights that they may face.

III. As the past has taught us many lessons that we cannot avoid, we look to a future where individuality creates the core of human experience. From gender to religion, race to sexuality, and the choices we individually make about our state of being, this document seeks to protect the right to make such choices.

IV. All member states of the European Union are charged with upholding this Declaration.

Section II. Human Dignity

I. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

II. All human beings also carry the responsibility of respecting the human rights of others.

Section III. Right to Life

I. Everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of their life, the right to liberty, and the right to security of person.

Section IV. Freedom from Slavery

I. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

II. Slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Section V. Freedom from Torture

I. Torture is defined as the practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on an individual in order to obtain information, confession etc., but stopping short of terminating their life.

II. No person shall be subjected to torture, both physical and psychological, for the purposes of interrogation, punishment or indeed any other reason.

III. No evidence obtained by torture techniques shall be accepted by a Court of Law.

IV. All persons are to be protected from cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment.

Section VI. Right to Personhood

I. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Section VII. Right to Equal Protection Under the Law

I. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

II. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Section VIII. Right to Legal Remedy

I. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights given to him by this Declaration and/or other relevant legislation.

Section IX. Right to Habeas Corpus

I. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile

Section X. Right to a Fair Trial

I. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal for any legal charges brought against them, and any determination of their rights and obligations.

Section XI. Freedom from Presumed or Retroactive Guilt

I. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which one has had all the guarantees necessary for one’s defence.

II. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense for any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the offense was committed.

Section XII. Right to Privacy

I. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to slanderous attacks upon one’s honour and reputation.

II. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Section XIII. Freedom of Movement

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

II. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country.

Section XIV. Right to Seek Asylum

I. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

II. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes, or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the European Union, as presented by European law.

Section XV. Right to Nationality

I. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

II. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality nor denied the right to change their nationality.

Section XVI. Right to Property

I. Everyone has the right to own property alone, as well as in association with others.

II. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Section XVII. Freedom of Conscience

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

II. This right includes freedom to change their religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance provided they do not violate the rights of others as mandated by this Declaration.

Section XVIII. Freedom of Expression

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

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.

Section XIX. Freedom of Association

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

II. No one may be forced to belong to an association against their will.

Section XX. Right to Democratic Governance

I. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

II. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

III. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

IV. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections, conducted under universal and equal suffrage for all of legal voting age, and held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Section XXI. Right to Working Conditions

I. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, in conditions that ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.

II. Everyone has the right not to face discrimination in the workplace on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, or religion.

Section XXII. Right to Education

I. Everyone has the right to a basic Education.

II. This includes, but is not limited to, reading, writing, and numeracy skills

Section XXIII. Right to Marriage

I. Everyone has the right to marry or be in a marriage in accordance with the law without distinction as to their sex or sexual orientation.

Section XXIV. Legal Use of this Declaration

I. This declaration may be used in a legal capacity as reference to prosecute those who contravene the contained Sections within.

Section XXV. Disclaimer

I. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
EUROPOLIS
2020-09-16

JULIAN MELGAR ex rel KINGDOM OF SPAIN v. GEORGE MONTREAL ex rel KINGDOM OF REITZMAG

On the Case of Original Jurisdiction filed by the CLAIMANT, the Kingdom of Spain.

CONCURRING:
Andreas EKKA
Anne GRUWEZ

DISSENTING:
NONE

RECUSED:
Luis López GUERRA

Chief Justice Ekka delivering the opinion of the court.

The Kingdom of Reitzmag, represented by the individual George Montreal, entered an agreement with the UNSR for recognition of said government in exchange for provisions to replace a naval asset lost in conflict pursuant to the Nyetthem Accords, an international treaty. The CLAIMANT presented that the actions of the individual George Montreal taken on behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag

The Court has concluded that, though the signing of the Nyetthem Accords preceded the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act, the Reitzmic Government and its associated entities knowingly and willingly disobeyed European Law for political, economic, and personal gain.

The Court draws attention to Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen act, stating,

“Effectively immediately, any and all military trade agreements between EU member states and Icholasen are hereby suspended and banned until such time as the legitimate government as Icholasen is restored.”

This act SUSPENDS and BANS any and all military trade agreements with the UNSR, and thus the bilateral military trade agreement between the Kingdom of Reitzmag and the UNSR as provisioned in the Nyetthem Accords was thus suspended. Therefore, any effort to fulfill the named provisions taken by the Kingdom of Reitzmag or individuals acting on behalf of entities named would be in violation of European Law.

Thus, the actions taken by the Reitzmic government in accepting funds for the loss of naval hardware in lieu of replacements for said hardware pursuant to the Nyetthem Accords following the passage of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act were in direct violation of European Law.

However, this court will not rule that the actions taken by the Reitzmic government in returning said funds were in violation of European Law. The return of funds was demanded by the UNSR after the Reitzmic government failed to uphold provisions in the treaty requiring them to recognise the UNSR. Thus, the return of funds was an action taken as restitution for the violation of a bilateral diplomatic agreement with a sufficient degree of separation from the initial agreement and thus not effecting or operating in lieu of the exchange of military hardware.

Regarding the kidnapping of Mr Bernie Sanders, the Reitzmic Prime Minister and Reitzmic Foreign Minister at the time were both operating in their positions within the Reitzmic government and were thus representing and acting on behalf of the entity the government of the Kingdom of Reitzmag. Both parties share liability in their actions. The open negotiations for military hardware from the UNSR, while not a violation of the law, establishes a pattern of behaviour in the Kingdom of Reitzmag that ignores the spirit of European Legislation in favour of opportunistic exchanges.

AS SUCH, this court rules in favour of the CLAIMANT. The actions taken by the Reitzmic government following the passage of the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen act ignoring the suspension of military trade agreements was a violation of European Law. This Court recognises that the Reitzmic Government was required to return the monies transferred that that the members of government have since been removed.

This Court thus ORDERS that the Kingdom of Reitzmag pay a fine of 500 000 000 € to the European Union and an additional 150 000 000 € to the Global Alliance Against Human Trafficking. This court also ORDERS that any remaining ‘suspended’ military or trade agreements, as defined in the Condemnation of the Coup in Icholasen Act, between the UNSR and Reitzmag be cancelled.

IN ADDITION, this court finds that the individual GEORGE MONTREAL was an accomplice in his actions taken pursuant to the Reitzmic provisions in the Nyetthem Accords to facilitate the exchange of military assets or a large sum in lieu thereof. As such, GEORGE MONTREAL is thus fined 5 000 000 € for contempt of European Law pursuant to the facilitation of violation of European Law by an entity directly devolved and named above.

REFERENCES:

CONDEMNATION OF THE COUP OF THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF ICHOLASEN

PREAMBLE
The European Union has committed to the Principles of Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. The recent actions taken by a cabal of communist sympathizing officers in the Nicoleizian Armed Forces are an affront to those principles. The European Union will attempt to support peaceful and diplomatic solutions to this crisis to the best of its ability

SECTION 1: DECLARATIONS

The European Union shall only recognize the democratically elected government of the United Dominions of Icholasen under Queen Anastasia II and Prime Minister Eilidh Whiteford as the legitimate government of Icholasen.
The European Union officially condemns the actions by the cabal of military officers, and will not support their illegitimate government known as the United Nicoleizian Socialist Republics in any capacity.
Only the United Dominions of Icholasen shall be recognized in the European Council for the purposes of representation.
SECTION 2: SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON THE ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT

Effectively immediately, any and all military trade agreements between EU member states and Icholasen are hereby suspended and banned until such time as the legitimate government as Icholasen is restored.
The ENAA license for limited nuclear warheads is hereby revoked until such time as the legitimate government of Icholasen holds proper authority and stability over its nation. There will be a one month period to turn over the nuclear weapons and shut down of all nuclear weapons production.
All luxury goods traded between the Icholasen and European Union member states are hereby embargoed until further notice.

Candidate Name: Andreas Ekka
Home Nation: Kingdom of Fremet
Incumbent? (Y/N): Y
Biography:

Graduated 1968 from the Universitetet i Nordhavn with an undergraduates degree in Civil Law. Graduated in 1971 from the Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Trondheim with an emphasis on Constitutional and Civil law, receiving his Royal Bar Certificate in 1972. Private Practice in Rhodenheim from 1972 to 1976. From 1976 to 1979, served on the Blumenfeld Council, prosecuting the war crimes of surviving offenders from the Nicoleizian occupation of Fremet in a special tribunal. From 1979 to 1986, served as a Crown Prosecutor in the Rhodenheim District Court. From 1986 to 1990, served as Judge on the Nordhavn District Court. From 1990 to 1998, served as Associate Justice on the Halvøya Court of Appeals. From 1998 to 2004, served as Chief Justice in the Trøndelag Superior Appellate Court. From 2004 to 2010, served as a Justice on the Fremetiansk Høyesterett and Cheif Justice from 2010 to 2020. Served as Chief Justice of the European Court of Justice during the Summer 2020 term.

As the Claimaint, Paloma Faith, has withdrawn her petition to this court, both parties have requested this case be closed in hope that an external settlement can be reached.

As such, the European Court of Justice, at the request of the Claimant and Respondent, has suspended all further hearings pertaining to Paloma Faith's petition and thereby CLOSES this session of court.

Clerk of Court of the European Court of Justice

Voting is closed, and results are in.

Turnout was 11, so the quota for election is 11/6, or 1.8333...

Results can be found below.

alt text

Congratulations to Justices EKKA, GUERRA, GRUWEZ, MORI, and SVENSON. Commiserations to Mr Barber.

For Chief Justice, with 8 out of 11 first-preference votes, the winner on the first count, with 73% of the vote, is Andreas EKKA. Congratulations to him.

Nominations have now closed. The candidates for the European Court of Justice are as follows:

Nicholas Barber (Sunkist) Andreas Ekka (Fremet) Luis López Guerra (Spain) Anne Gruwez (Malborya) Francois Mori (Gallorum) Frans Svenson (Mennrimiak)

Voting is over

There were, in total, 9 votes.

All candidates are elected to the ECoJ by default, as there were only five candidates for five positions. Congratulations to all candidates.

For Chief Justice, the number of first preference votes for each candidate were as follows:

Nara AL-KAHINA – 4
Luka REGALENA – 4
Francois MORI – 1

As no candidate has over 50% of the vote, the candidates with the fewest votes – candidates LORENZEN, MORI, and RINDER – are eliminated, and their first-preference votes transferred. On the second count, the number of votes for the remaining candidates were as follows:

Luka REGALENA – 5
Nara AL-KAHINA – 4

Therefore Luka REGALENA is duly elected Chief Justice of the ECoJ. Congratulations to him, and commiserations to the other justices. The new ECoJ's term will conclude on 8th January, 2020.