De Zutphense (ver)hoormethode representatief voorbeeld van "corruptie coalities rechtbanken, Raad voor de Kinderbescherming en jeugdzorg" in Nederland

Uit het recht op een 'fair trial', zoals beschermd door artikel 6 EVRM, valt nog een aantal nadere procedurele garanties af te leiden. Deze hangen voor een deel samen met het beginsel van 'equality ofarms', het recht voor de in de (bestuurs)rechtelijke procedure betrokken burger om met 'dezelfde wapenen' als de overheid te kunnen procederen. Zo heeft het EHRM uit artikel 6 EVRM de positieve verplichting voor de rechter afgeleid om processtukken te verstrekken aan de klager. In de zaak Kerojarvi waren de klager, een oorlogsinvalide, bepaalde medische rapporten onthouden, waarop de rechterlijke beslissing over de mate van zijn invaliditeit en corresponderend recht op compensatie mede was gebaseerd. Op deze wijze had de klager volgens het EHRM niet ten volle kunnen participeren in de rechterlijke procedure en daarmee had hij geen eerlijk proces gehad.Z" In een andere zaak acht het Hof de onmogelijkheid voor de klager om op een deskundigenrapport te reageren in strijd met het recht op een eerlijk proces ex artikel 6 EVRM

Commission/Sub-Commission Team (1503 Procedure) Support Service Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais des Nations Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Ermelo, September 10, 2008.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Subject: COMPLAINT International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III

COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

Page 26. Under the 1503 procedure, the Commission has the mandate to examine a consistent pattern of gross and reliable attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms ocurring in any country of the world. Any individual or group claiming to be the victim of such human right violations may submit a com,plaint, as may any other person or group with with direct and reliable knowledge of such violations.

COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1

Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him

Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

THIS IS NO COMPLAINT to review the evaluation of facts and evidence by the national courts and authorities, NO review of the interpretation of domestic legislation

Previous.

This complaint was already received at your Office on 26 augustus 2008 in Dutch language and returned with a letter "With the compliments of the Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights PLEASE WRITE IN ENGLISH. So today the complaint is posted again to you in ENGLISH

This complaint dated September 1, 2008 was already received at your Office on 5 september 2008 in ENGLISH language and returned with a letter "After careful consideration of the contents of your petion (communicatyion/complaint) we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Inited Nations Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the reasons indicated on the back of this letter: "The Human Rights Committee is not generally in a positions to review the evaluation of facts and evidence bij the national courts and authorities, nor can it review the interpretation of domestic legislation" along with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 and Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

FOR THE THIRD TIME I SEND YOU THIS COMPLAINT again and implemented your advise in two factsheets you send me:

Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 

and 

Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

I propose to the United Nations that in the future when you return a complaint to a person with the request to write in English you also include these two fact sheets immediately.

1. 1. The complainant J. Hop. It should undersigned, J. Hop, Joubertstraat 24, 3851 DM Ermelo, The Netherlands a complaint against the State of the Netherlands because the State of the Netherlands do not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer.

2. 2. Admissibility. The complainant J. Hop is PERSONAL the victim of a violation of human rights as a condition for proceeding to the UN Committee on Civil and Political Rights.

3. 3. The complaint is filed with the basis for the complaint: Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO enumerate a number of procedural safeguards that everyone should enjoy "in determining his civil rights and obligations" or "in determining the merits of an it was criminal ".

These safeguards are:

1. The right to an independent and impartial court. The impartiality of the court must show beyond any doubt, because he has to judge about others.
2. The right to a fair and public hearing of his case. A fair treatment means that among the adversary proceeding manner. This requires that the parties are aware of all the arguments and evidence presented to the court and that they can discuss this for the court.
3. The right to the hearing within a reasonable time.

The requirement of independence and impartiality is particularly strict rated: "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." Firstly, the judicial system and the courts are structured so that in respect of the litigants no doubt about the independence and impartiality of the court may arise (objective or structural impartiality). Then the judge may not personally biased (subjective or personal impartiality) or put them under pressure.

4.1 The complaint concerns a request dismissed three judges objection. Mr. R.A. Eskes, Mr. D. Vergunst and Mrs. I.G.M.Th Weijers-van der Marck of the Court Zutphen, The Netherlands.

4.2 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and / or

4.3 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. Er is sprake van belangenverstrengeling. There is interest. The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated and all three have denied a written indictment against J. Hop on paper.  The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.4 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. Er is sprake van belangenverstrengeling. There is interest.The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated and all three have refused J. Hop copy of this information. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.5 There is no law objectively speaking, by Judge. Mr. D. D. Vergunst whose disqualification was requested.  He has in his judgement be guided by the wrong interests.  There is interest in the exercise of secondary by Judge Mr. D. D. Vergunst The judges were challenged Vergunst DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.6 There is no law objectively speaking, Judge Mr. D. D. Vergunst whose disqualification was requested. He has in his judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest in the exercise of political rights. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.7 The case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop Ermelo should NOT be handled by Zutphen District Court but by an other district court in the Netherlands

5.1 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges who have objection to the request decides. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The three judges who have objection to the request decide all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated. This case concerns a case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop and the complainant believes that a case where a court ordered the prosecutor and thus is a direct party should NOT decide on that case.

and/or

5.2 There is no objective right spoken by the three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland), who also objection to the request have decided. The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen have occurred in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The President of the Court Zutphen in a TV broadcast of Gelderland Broadcasting legislation declares that he wants to adjust to a court challenge by the complainant Hop and / or other expert and thereby to the judicial officers of the Commercial Court Zutphen difficult opponents impossible.

and/or

5.3 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) objection to the request have decided frustrate a right enshrined in the ACT because it does not reach them.

and/or

5.4 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) who have objection to the request decides are of the opinion that an expert and therefore difficult opponent no opportunities may be applicable to a regular supply by law in the law; com a request for objection.

and/or

5.5.0 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) who have objection to the request to decide the collegial relations with the three judges at which a request was submitted objection prevail over a right enshrined in the ACT to Judges to challenge a while:

5.5.1 - it is convincing evidence that the three judges ARE INTERESTED were challenged in the proceedings against the complainant J. Hop. Hop.

5.5.2 - it is convincing evidence that the indictment against J. Hop in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop was NOT for the hearing put in writing so that plaintiff J. Hop had no time and no facilities has been good for his defence to prepare and / or documents in itself to serve

5.5.3 - it is convincing evidence that the procedure Zutphen District Court against J. Hop complainant J. Hop has received no copy of a file! Only the three judges had a COMPLETE copy of a file in possession of the three judges who had the procedure Zutphen District Court against J. Hop went decide how important that these three judges themselves were interested.

6. Convincing evidence that the three judges themselves were directly interested in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop and wanted to decide the matter without the written indictment against plaintiff J. Hop on paper and without complete trial file for J. Hop to the hearing, it is absolutely necessary in the present objection TO BE VERY STRICTLY TO THERE OWN INTEREST and for the sake of COLLEGIATE INTERESTS and no walk to take the LAW. The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer

7.0 There is "inappropriate behavior" of the Zutphen District Court against plaintiff J. Hop  in which the court is acting contrary to law as written laws, regulations, general measures of governance and the like. They include rules to find what may or may not. It is therefore imperative conduct to be respected. These serve not only to indicate how they should behave, what to do and leave, but it is also true that non-compliance, in violation of certain unpleasant or harmful consequences. This conduct is called legal standards laid down in the law.

Apparently it succeeded Zutphen District Court (after the smear Vedivo campaign against Hop (137) with as a base websites that were not Hop websites) only of the RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent to win using "inappropriate behavior" where all the written law and to conduct an "impartial judge" on the side were put to Hop into an unfair indictment trial without written on paper and without copy trial file intends to tackle in Thus a RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent to the hearings of the Court Zutphen will be undone by judges in that case to decide who always Hop hearings on the child would have had.

7.1 In the present complaint are the three judges challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop (plaintiff) in which case they themselves are also court and also in that case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop have decided without charge in writing to J. Hop and without trial file for J. Hop Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

7.2 In order to make clear to the United Nations Committee on Civil and Political Rights that there was "inappropriate behavior" of the Court Zutphen are examples of extreme conduct in the Netherlands and how a judge should behave.

Example 1. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue: Council for the Judiciary, The Hague in October 2002.

1.1 Quote page 3. Introduction. For years judges were suffering from a dusty image. Judges were older gentlemen who, dressed in black dresses, all day boring read codes. What is happening outside the court, because judges were not aware of. That image is true no longer. If there is JUDICIARY today for a significant proportion are women. In addition, the court in modern society. The court must not only know the law but also know what is living under the the citizens. It gives support for his statements.

1.2 Quote page 4 rule 1,2,3 and 4. General What is justice. The judge expresses law. HE TAKES A INDEPENDENT ruling AS TWO PARTIES HAVE A CONFLICT.

Example 2. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue Council for the Judiciary, Den Haag december 2004. Page 6 quote: "An important prerequisite for fair law is that an independent court"

Example 3. Guidelines for the impartiality of the judiciary created commissioned by the Dutch Association for the Judiciary and the meeting of presidents of courts and appèlcolleges Source: www.burojeugdzorg.nl/480.htm A quote from this guidance by the profession itself compiled: "Guidance for the" impartiality of judges. "A quote:" A judge shall also not deal with cases in which he is so concerned that his judicial impartiality under discussion could come to the fore. "

Example 4. The northern town mayor has Oostpolder mr WLFC ridder van Rappard and this mayor has as one of its secondary function: "member committee Collection Members Judiciary." From the regulation committee objections Noordoostpolder town is the requirement that the president and the (deputy) members not part may make or not operating under the responsibility of an administrative organ of the town Noordoostpolder (Article 2 quarters member of the Regulation). Furthermore, the members do not participate in considering an objection if it called into question their impartiality might be (Article 13). It is therefore unacceptable that a member of the bezwaarschriftencommissie decide on a case in which he / she is itself an interested party.

Example 5. With each court "judges commissioners". The court commissioner is responsible for monitoring whether a trial should be carried out under the correct procedure and that he has yet additional powers. A court commissioner shall never rechtspreken in a court case in which he also has been commissioner, he should leave this task to one of his fellow judges.

Example 6. Source: Conference on March 16, 2001, Congress Center "The Reehorst" Ede. Course law. Complaint law, disciplinary, civil law, criminal law; implications for practice and policy. Complaint law implications for practice and policy E. Roelofs - de Bruin. Roelofs - de Bruin. By Mr. Paul te Horst, Director of Legal Consultancy Achterhoek / Warnsveld (Gld)

6.1 Quote page 4: Some legal principles of the grievance. A. Independence: Members of the Complaint Commission from their profession not to the complaint. Even with the policy of the institution. THEY MAY HAVE DIRECT NO INTEREST IN THE COMPLAINT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.

6.2 Quote page 18: "The president sends a complaint to the above requirements, as formulated by the competent college has been submitted to the person against whom complained and asks him or her to a written response"

6.3 Quote page 18: "Both parties gain during the proceedings about the decision (copies of) the pieces."

Example 7. Source: Annual Report Province of Noord-Brabant. Provinciale Klachtenverordening Jeugdhulpverlening Noord-Brabant 1998  

Quote page 10 the first paragraph: "The members of the committee may not be associated with a facility, institution or agency under the force of the regulation. They shall in any case referred to an employment relationship with people who have such an institution and directors of an institution. IMPORTANT IS IN ANY CASE THAT EVEN THE APPARENT OF INTEREST TO BE AVOIDED. Furthermore, the members are not linked to an organisation which is committed to the defence of youngsters and their parents, guardians, step-, foster parents in the jeugdhulpverlening, as the Justice Foundation in Familiezaken (SOR) or the Advice and Complaints Youth (AJK). Members may finally also not an employee or director of the province.

Example 8. Dekenale opinions Bar Association.

Source: Association of Lawyers for the district Zutphen mr BAI Baks, Dean 1 april 1996 on mr X / Hop Quote: As you write, you shall enter or do you want to act for Mr X with the former wife of the Mr Hop-Mrs X is married. Of course, you are free to decide for Mr X to act, but not against Mr Hop if it comes to issues that are still in the divorce. It is certain that in the past for Mr Hop in his divorce contra Mrs X are occurred. It allows you are not free than ever concerning divorce odf related issues AGAINST him to act.  Here indeed is true according to which ancient jurisprudence mariageproblems of so delicate and highly personal nature, that a lawyer is totally forbidden ever to act against his former client.

Source: ACT 1 november 1996 Board of Trustees of the Order of lawyers in the district Mr. Zutphen. JH Brouwer. Subject: X mr / Hop. Quote: Meanwhile, I have taken note of the file, in particular of your letter (mr X) on October 8 last, it shows you that you are somewhat free to Mrs X and her children to act and make their views known them to third parties.  In our conversation I have indicated a different view on it. I refer first to the contents of the letter from Mr. Baks 1 last april where you're asked to confirm that you nor for Mr X, nor for Mrs X against Mr Hop in divorceproblems or related disputes will occur. Mr. Baks ex officio action has so far reserved you are unwilling to act.  In response to your letter dated 16 april 1996 showed up at that time nor Mrs X, neither Mr X in any case against Mr. Hop freedom. Mr.  Baks have you by letter dated October 7, 1996 asked him to explain why you've considered - despite his previous dekenale opinions - none again for Mrs X and her children to have to occur. Given the history outlined the state can no longer free for Mrs X to (continue to) act. You have shown me your efforts with immediate effect to be regarded as terminated and has expressed willingness in the future again for Mrs X to act if the disputes with Mr. Hop, respectively his current partner, dealing with divorce or related issues.

Example 9. Source www.burojeugdzorg.nl/114.htm 29 937 Amendments to the Law legal judicial officials in connection with a few additions to the system of secondary of judicial officers and court officials in training during the binnenstage. Quote: "The impartiality and independence of the judiciary is one of the key achievements of our state. The obligation to report, registration and disclosure of secondary in Lower House, 2004-2005, 29 937, No. 3 5 Article 44 Wrra stems from the idea that openness is in the interest of confidence in (the impartiality and independence of the) judiciary. The established jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the impartiality of judges means that there are no facts or circumstances that may be, whatever the personal creation of the court, raising doubts about whether the judge is impartial. There may not even a semblance of partiality. "

The State of the Netherlands taking on, the complainant raised above examples NORM, NOT meet the requirement complainant J. Hop a fair trial to offer. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING. The judges who decide on the objection have been interested in the case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop.  

8.0 remarks and substantiation of the claim that J. Hop is a RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent is that the childjudges of the Court Zutphen like to say at the hearings wanted kinderbeschermingszaken with ten years experience as the basis and Practice.

8.1 Professional ethics and mental institution J. Hop. For people like Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger in an emotionally vulnerable and often difficult situation such as child protection to assist in proceedings against administrative organs and judiciary is a good mental institution. It is of great importance both mentally and mentally able to withstand the problems facing the agent to gain. Because the action of the agent as an honest and therefore often difficult opponent will be "correcting others" for example after winning complaintcases and / or other proceedings will this action by authorised by the other criticism and resistance calls. The person against whom occurred (often RvdK employees and / or "youth authority bureau") will be the action of the Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger see as an intrusive and this is all the more so because Hop known procedurally and systematically to complain and to proceed and for information to ask. Systematic to standards and dangers to ask to see how the comparison has been reached.

8.2 From an integrity, competence and thus difficult Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger can be expected that he continues to perform his duties well, despite the resistance against the action and the resulting negative influences. This is all the more when criticism on the functioning of the judiciary in the past in cases often linked to access to children and later more often in cases linked to child protection.

8.3 Hop is honest, upright and incorruptible. In the past, Hop therefore never addressed proposals of a counterparty, or judiciary committee to investigate complaints at a maximum of one sheet of A4 to submit, not repeated the same complaints against a defendant to serve a maximum of 5 to submit complaints and no more complaints to be submitted on the issue of contactjournaal gezinsvoogd. This mentality of Hop in the interest of the citizen who came to assist Hop Hop often costly to because Hop in a growing number of institutions as the youth representative was refused. Recent imported complaint law to requests from the "youth authority bureau" to Parliament and the Minister as soon as possible was adapted to an expert and therefore difficult opponent to be switched on. This meant, therefore, as the end of all Provincial Complaint Commissions Youth in the Netherlands.

8.4 Hop citizens will advise NO COMPLAINTS more to go but is advising people only to litigate with a REQUEST, and ACTION COMPLAINT against the "youth authority bureau" and RvdK. This once again the Zutphen District Court on its path encountered any court of first instance Zutphen long remained on the submitted appeals refuse to go with is also increasingly critical of Hop on the uneven turnaround by the Court Zutphen be handled by petitions. The annoyance of the Zutphen District Court against Hop that does not go through university study has yet proved to be equal with the submission of appeals on the basis Wob and Article 5.5 Woj. it was only bigger. It took the Zutphen District Court also complete the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands as a "buddy" at Hop because the lawyer of that profession who was deployed against Hop alleged at the hearing by the court Zutphen "that if the submission of a Reference, and COMPLAINT APPLICATION in child protection would be granted the "gate of the dam would be." There are so enormous (financial) interests in both the judiciary and the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands for costs Hop off to the submission of a Reference, COMPLAINT APPLICATION by citizens and to prevent and criticism of the unequal turnaround of petitions and appeals and appeals on the basis Wob and Article 5.5 Woj.

8.4 The legal profession about Hop: "Quote:" Mr. Hop was a forerunner busy lamb to the system. In the first instance was in this context using nuisance, but legal means as the systematic complain and ask for information systematically "Source Rule 21, 22 and 23 Pleitnotities X lawyer at the public hearing of the Court of Discipline 150304."

8.5 In addition, the State like that on top of every child a risk analysis would make and the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands but is not pediatric aimed at scaling up. Criticism of Hop on cooperation judiciary, RvdK and "youth authority bureau" and working CONTENTS on the petitions from the RvdK and "youth authority bureau" to childjudges to enable even faster petitions from governing bodies there by them to hunt and ever more children growing quickly OTS and UHP to provide to the childjudges of the Court in Zutphen wrong frowned cases. The profession childjudges in Zutphen exploded when Hop criticism went on the childjudges van Zutphen that they had better watch out and better their work had to do and had to check the dates on the reports of the youth in accordance with the date of faxverzoeken to spoeduithuisplaatsingen of children and that the profession had to do with truth and after had to determine whether the AANKLACHTEN OF THE JEUGDZORG is right and could be substantiated with FACTS.

Example 1. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue: Council for the Judiciary, The Hague in October 2002.

1.1 Quote page 3. Inleiding. Introduction. For years judges were suffering from a dusty image. Judges were older gentlemen who, dressed in black dresses, all day boring read codes. What is happening outside the court, because judges were not aware of. That image is true no longer. If there is JUDICIARY today for a significant proportion are women. The court must not only know the law but also know what is living under the the citizens. It gives support for his statements.

1.2 Quote page 4 rule 1,2,3 and 4. General What is justice. The judge expresses law. HE TAKES A INDEPENDENT ruling AS TWO PARTIES HAVE A CONFLICT.

Apparently, the judges of the Court Zutphen still NOT as judges in modern society and feel the childjudges being so attacked by Hop that legislation and standards for an "independent court" and "independent judiciary" because it is them in the case against non Hop reach for all but secured to the side is put to Hop to be switched on.

8.7 Studies and rulings with J. Hop as Agent against administrative organs in the Netherlands.

9. One of the grounds for Mr.  Vergunst was a challenge because all his (reformed) additional positions. In the play Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger went to the proceedings against the Reformed Youth Foundation.  Vergunst testifies assets of (reformed) faith and he also writes that the elements of (reformed) believe a noticeable undertone to his environment for his work.  Vergunst had therefore BASED declares to be here because the procedures involved with the Reformed Youth Protection Foundation (SGJ) as a counterparty of parents with Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger and SGJ a direct interest in the elimination of Hop as integrity, competence and thus difficult opponent .

Dirk Vergunst, Vice-President court Zuthphen
My work I do not see in the first place as an opportunity to actively witness of my faith. The quality of the work is central, albeit that this should be embedded in a life of (collegiate) dienstbetoon, charity and a uitnemender deem than the other. Thus, I, frankly, my hands more than full. I hope that these elements for my area the noticeable undertone forms of my work, both in the collegiate dealings in relation to the litigants. That is not to say that I am not for my conviction results, on the contrary. Amazement about my faith, as I often encounter, with astonishment, I am responding on disbelief: look at the sky, the trees, your own hands and put me out again how can that you only have to view the material instead for the miracle. Then sometimes creates space for living in a message of a God who wants to keep people, not because they are so sweet, but because He is love.

Source: Impact, Christian are in work, relationships and society No 3rd year on July 3, 2002, The Crazy Bob's?

De Gekke Henkie's?! The Crazy Bob's?  Christian at your workplace.  Does that mean your work as good as possible?  Or the chance to seize non-believer colleagues to tell the gospel?  Ten people plus a statement: "Christians would be more pronounced in their work. Clearer witnesses, and clear their views on professional and social issues. It is not just a good act, Christians have an open and widely read book. "

Nolda Griffioen, Operation Engineer Shell
Delivered Christian.  What's that?  Does it mean that I daily my neighbor in the tram should ask 'Are you born again? "  Does the jealously prove that despite my christenzijn I'm still a professional? Life as a child of God is my love for my fellow human beings, integrity, listening and acting. Delivered Christian is subtle.  I pray God for wisdom.   It is often wrong.  I get a question and got itself into a discussion which I blinded by verbal warfare bid or not really listen to my opponent.  In retrospect I pray: 'God, where were you? "  But where was I?

Richard Doornbosch, officer Ministry of Finance
It is important to realize that Christians have no monopoly on charity.  They are not the only ones who seek a just society.  Obviously you as a Christian first and just do your work and not the whole day on a chair to stand for the gospel to preach.  The belief anywhere in the hair bijslepen, generates more than a little irritation.  The lunch or a beer after work in the tavern often gives me more opportunity to explain what the faith means to me.  So not always and everywhere with the gospel on the tip of my tongue.  But hopefully always approachable and identifiable as Christian.

Dirk Vergunst, Vice-President court Zuthphen
My work I do not see in the first place as an opportunity to actively witness of my faith. The quality of the work is central, albeit that this should be embedded in a life of (collegiate) dienstbetoon, charity and a uitnemender deem than the other. Thus, I, frankly, my hands more than full. I hope that these elements for my area the noticeable undertone forms of my work, both in the collegiate dealings in relation to the litigants. That is not to say that I am not for my conviction results, on the contrary. Amazement about my faith, as I often encounter, with astonishment, I am responding on disbelief: look at the sky, the trees, your own hands and put me out again how can that you only have to view the material instead for the miracle. Then sometimes creates space for living in a message of a God who wants to keep people, not because they are so sweet, but because He is love.

Mirjam Siesling, AIO faculty Rights - University of Utrecht
As a Christian you have no reason to hide your lifestyle banks stabbing. This applies not only to work, but for every day and every circumstance.  I try in my work as far as possible always to remember that God has made me with the talents I have. D  That I want the best possible use against my neighbour and honor of him.
My immediate colleagues know that I am a Christian and I can open with them about this.  The content I have not directly to do with philosophical problems in my work.   I know that it can be different.  Someone who has worked here, concerned many of his Christian views in his research. The mixing of personal opinions and objective scientific research was not thank him declined. I regret that they were with him apparently does not mind change.

Johan Bac, a judicial official in training - public prosecutor in Utrecht
Jesus had very strong views, but the man never lost from sight.  Christians with strong views and a bit zendingsijver can sometimes emphasize too much the first and the second too many lose sight of.  If there is anything where my non-Christian colleagues are sensitive to, it is that finger finds that, without ever having listened.
In addition, we must also hand in his own bosom dare stabbing.  The much beleden pursuit of a high professional level and a good fellowship (completely agree incidentally) is sometimes a fig leaf to a deep, substantial conversation from the path of a clash of minds to avoid.  Recently a colleague asked whether I still have no problem with euthanasiemeldingen I get on my desk.  I've explained to him what I think, but it left.   Perhaps a nice opportunity.

Cor Verkade, teacher and onroerendgoedontwikkelaar
Christians sometimes feel guilty when they meet colleagues, neighbors or fellow students not living in a message have told you, they are therefore responsible for the zielenheil of those who are not confronted with the message.  In my belief Christians are just as much responsible for it spreading the good message and the consequences that that has created by others (disgust, hardening, disgust). We must find the right place and manner to the most intimate that we have to share with families chosen for this purpose.  And the wee screaming and the neurotic.  Also in these situations: 'Not by force or by violence but by my Spirit will take place. "

Esther Roeleveld, financial consultant
If you most of the day working, then you take your christenzijn back to work.  You can not even turn on you at the moment you enter the office goes, as you coat hanging on the rack.  In my christenzijn on my work, competence in the first place.  In so doing I try to love God and serving the people and society to act.  I believe that the value of your work in the eyes of God based on the intention with which it is done. So witnesses by your good work to do and with the right intention! Is God the driving force behind your work so you want to make a difference in the lives of others?  Or does it actually do to influence, salary and self?  Are you trying to open everybody to act and nobody are unable to operate, including those colleagues that you at first sight and which may not seem so boring?

Teunis van Kooten, lawyer and doctoral candidate at the Free University
In your work, I think two things are important.  First, you just do good work. So not during working things for the church regulate: since we stick flawlessly throughout.   Secondly, (work) arrangements with colleagues and you meet them socially slightly (not too soft incidentally) to prepare.  Take it to observe others. While there is always something for everybody or to remark, then you become settled.   In conversations with colleagues - for example about the underlying weekend - you can tell what about your motives, without insisting on something.  Also you can say - in my box that still plays regularly - why a particular case whether or not it adopts a certain strategy choose. You can change the facts in a positive way for your client colors, but what you ga therein?

Leon Frantzen, director DKN Financial Consultants Ltd
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a few decades ago: 'I am never tired to say that no evangelical church should organise campaigns to attract outsiders, but itself must begin the Christian life in practice. " In his book Let the nations be glad writes J. Piper: 'Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church; worship is. Piper: "Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church; worship. Missions exists because worship doesn't.' Missions exists because worship does not. " If I were these two different statements (which has nothing to do seem to have with our workplace) released on the argument, then I come off at the 'deugdenlijst' of Petrus (see 2 Peter 1:5-7).  In compliance will lead to piety (verse 8). The emphasis is not for nothing on a piece of zeal (fresh 5).  It is a gift and a mission. God wants to do things in our lives, along with us.  God calls us forward in life.  Asking us to do?

Justin de Jong, surgeon in training
Christian operate.  Not in the handling of the knife but with problems that sometimes occur at the beginning and end of life.  The popular of every individual and belief in the afterlife give an extra dimension to your profession.   In discussions with dissenters gives you something more to report than what is the quality "or" everything is still below last. "  You will be a mad Bob found, but fully accepted.  By open, without too intrusive, and to see where you stand for, you can make people curious to identify the source of mad Bob.  God does the rest.

10. President Court Zutphen is a political opponant against Hop on subject of "lekenrechtspraak"

Might is right. Mr. Vrieze President of the Court Zutphen: "Training and reflection are not devoted to a jury.

10.1 There is resentment of at least one to know Mr. G. Vrieze President of the Court Zutphen or more of the judges against the complainant in this case. The complainant has criticised the law and its political position "entering lekenrechtspraak" to the quality of justice in the Netherlands. Mr. G. President of the Court Zutphen is a staunch opponent of the introduction of lekenrechtspraak.

10.2 Source: Law Dagblad 11 april 2008.

From one of our editors

Vrieze juryrechtspraak looks bleak in: without justification guilty or innocent?

Jury promotes non-law expertise. "That says an appellate court. Mr. G.  , president of the court Zutphen, in his speech during the installatiebijeenkomst today lekenrechtspraak on the grain.   In 'various media' - the Judiciary always keep the general - would the introduction of juryrechtspraak weather 'ns advocates, because that would be democratic. According Vrieze democracy goes on legislation that applies to everyone and not volksgerichten, at least he warns. Enfin, onderstaand kort z'n cri de coeur in het 'debat'. Finally, shortly following his cri de coeur in the 'debate'.  His statement reads: A jury has been no improvement of the competence of the judiciary and also increases the confidence in the law.  Mr. Vrieze: "What has the society to a jury without justification" guilty "or" innocent "calls?  The far-reaching decisions every day in the courtroom have taken a thorough explanation is needed. "Mr Vrieze thinks that the law could be improved:" By investing in the expertise of judges when it comes to critically examine all sorts of evidence.  And to open a stand for the idea that experts believe may vary.  For example, there are already invested in continuing training, improvement of the inquiry, a nationwide database of certified experts and reflection afterwards.   Training and reflection are not devoted to a jury. "

10.3 How much money should the company still academically trained judicial officials invest if this profession "expert" and therefore difficult opponents trying to turn it off and death to silence by NOT INDEPENDENT JUDGES on a case, no indictment written on paper to continue and no trial file copy to the profession because it is not true because a tricky opponent should be off?

10.4 This appears all the more given the ruling of Jeanne Dijkstra editor of Wegener's Weekly Ermelo to the Council for Journalism. Hearings, and interviews. Quote of the ruling Council for Journalism: "The defendant stressed that it is not a member of a political Party and entirely neutral. It has been 15 years working for Ermelo's Weekly and is known as a reliable reporter. "Hear and interviews. Quote from its defence to the Council for Journalism:" From all sides in Ermelo, the call heard to this political party (Group Hop) death in silence and I am sadly out that this is probably true "writes Mrs. Jeanne Dijkstra editor of the Weekly's Ermelo to the Council for Journalism.

0.5 This appears all the more because during the last provincial elections in Assam verkiezingsposters of the "Group Hop" everywhere on the verkiezingsborden were met on overplakt to "Hop Group" death to remain silent.

10.6 Macht is Judiciary! Remarks www.burojeugdzorg.nl/20.htm From all sides are heard and the call once again by the Court Zutphen honoured to plaintiff J.  and the political group (Group Hop) dead silence.  The unfounded stated objection of three judges of the court Zutphen as described above is yet another proof that attempts are made with integrity, competence and thus difficult opponent and complaining to the UN J. Hop as far as possible to frustrate and silenced them.

11. The request for disqualification of Vergunst was rejected but the objection had implications for the vervolgprocedures in the case. Judge Vergunst was also replaced in the case. What then did was very strange that the same Judge Vergunst suddenly functioned as persrechter and in this case as a spectator who also was present at the sessions pertaining to the community where Mr. Vergunst was also a member of .

12. The Zutphen District Court fits this practice occasionally, there is a structural process. Also in the vervolgprocedure after the refusal of Mr. Hop fit these three judges same tactics and ignoring the Mantovanelli judgement by the applicants do not have all submitted documents to be available . During a wrakingszitting of the court was again denied that the Tribunal on the documents had not received while a receipt of the court in the possession of applicants. The investigation of the relevant documents was carried out by the investigating judge Mr. Eskes. This investigation lasted so long that the result which would be of importance for other cases pending in court. An appeal to this investigation should not benefit because the new investigating judge was simply ruling on these matters. The outcome of the study was that a 3 numerous pieces belonged to a different procedure while the documents submitted 9 productions concerned.

13. The Zutphen District Court loses by this process of its judges and its president's credibility as an independent court. From a court challenge unfounded but proceeds to applying what is the objection and a president who invited his own frustration at the television at law remedies and there are obviously no good abilities can go as well as a court without meeting the legal requirements as well as an agent refuses a court which allows no independent judges participate in sessions can not be maintained that they have credible manner . Ergo er wordt afbreuk gedaan aan de onpartijdigheid van de rechterlijke macht wat zou moeten leidden tot grootscheepse schoonmaakacties. Ergo it is detrimental to the impartiality of the judiciary which would have led to massive schoonmaakacties.

14.1 There is Judiciary with double standards by the court Zutphen.

14.2 The case Congregation Salvation Army at the town of Zutphen was WEL by the court Zuthpen referred to the court Almelo because in this case, an employee of the Zutphen District Court was concerned.

Measuring double standards because

in the case Zutphen District Court  against J. Hop Ermelo was NOT referred to another court while the Zutphen District Court in the case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop itself childjudges three of the Zutphen District Court and the court itself Zutphen were interested.

14.3 legislation quote: She may be a case brought by her to further treatment refer to another court if its judgement on involvement of the court handling of that case by another court is desired. "

Section 8.1.3

Referral, joinder and split

Art. (8.1.3.1) [Reference] (8.1.3.1)
-1. The court may in its pending case for further treatment refer to the court where another case is pending if its treatment of those cases considered by a court is desired. They may be a case brought by her to further treatment refer to another court if its judgement on involvement of the court handling of that case by another court is desired.
-2. A request to change can be made until the start of the trial.
-3. If the court that a case has been referred agree to the referral, be placed on the case documents related to her.

14.4 In the case Congregation Salvation Army at the town of Zutphen was WEL by the court Zuthpen referred to the court Almelo LJN: BA2013, President of the Court of Almelo, 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

14.5 Decision: The court has Zutphen, applying the provisions of Article 8:13, the first paragraph of the Awb the application for interim injunction referred to the Interim of the court Almelo

  LJN: BA2013, President of the Court of Almelo, 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

Date pronunciation: 30-03-2007

Publication Date: 02-04-2007

Judicial: Administrative Others

Type of procedure: Provisional facility

Inhoudsindicatie: In the present dispute, the relevant question is whether the immediate urgency that the decision of January 31, 2007, partially modified by a decision of February 15, 2007, which includes the imposition of a burden under penalty with respect to overrule explicitly asked noise because activities from the building, suspended or otherwise produced an interim measure was taken. APV Zutphen, vrijheid van godsdienst. APV Zutphen, freedom of religion.

Pronunciation TRIBUNAL ALMELO
Administrative Division


Registration: 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

Ruling of the President ruled as provided for in Article 8:84 General Administrative Law Act dated March 30, 2007

in the dispute between:

Kerkgenootschap the Salvation Army,
established in Almere, applicant,
Agent: mr BJW Walraven, a lawyer in Rotterdam,

and

the College of Mayor and Aldermen of the town of Zutphen,
defendant.


Third-party: Adamanshuis Foundation, established in Zutphen.


1. Decision on which the request relates
Decision of defendant dated January 31, 2007 and the amended complaint pending decision dated February 15, 2007.


2. Process
Following defendant received complaints relating to noise caused by the activities carried out by the applicant be developed in the building Hagepoortplein 4A in Zutphen (the pledge), officials employed by defendants town checks and noise.  By letter dated May 22, 2006 defendant has communicated to the applicant within a period of one month brassband and other activities with enhanced music are no longer allowed. Defendant has also indicated that he is considering using its powers to impose a burden under penalty if after the expiry of that period the noise standards are exceeded. The applicant is given an opportunity to give his views.  By letter dated June 14, 2006, the applicant has a view.  By letter dated July 11, 2006 defendant applicant has indicated that, having regard to the agreements made between him and the applicant, he sees no reason to enforcement action. By decision of January 31, 2007 (primary decision 1) defendant has a burden to the applicant under penalty imposed containers that, essentially, an applicant penalty forfeits if the primary decision 1 explicitly defined maximum allowable noise standards are violated.  The begunstigingstermijn is made on February 1, 2007.

That the applicant in a letter dated February 13, 2007 filed an objection.   Concomitant to the voorzieningenrechter of Zutphen asked the court to take an interim measure includes the suspension of primary decision 1. By decision of February 15, 2007 (primary decision 2) the defendant has begunstigingstermijn of primary decision 1 until May 1, 2007.  Having regard to the provisions of Article 6:19, the first member of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb) is the objection of co-applicant deemed to have been directed primarily against decision 2.  Defendant has on the case related documents on February 20, 2007 introduced.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 8:13, the first paragraph of the Awb is the application for interim injunction referred to the President ruled on this court.
Defendant on March 1, 2007 further documents in the dispute.

Public examination of the application has taken place in court on March 26, 2007 where the applicant has represented by JCY van Vliet, JNJ Wisseborn and RLJ Keijzer, assisted by his agent said.  Defendant was represented by mr FBM of Aanhold and N. van Buitenen.  Third-party is represented by P. Will.   


3. Recitals

The core of the dispute Under Article 8:81 of the Awb, if prior to a possible appeal to the court objection was made by the proposer of the appeal to the President ruled on the court an interim injunction be sought.  In assessing such a request should be considered whether immediate urgency, given the competing interests, introducing an interim measure.  Insofar as this review means that a judgement is pronounced that also the subject of the bezwarenprocedure touches, this view has a provisional character.  Therefore, in this case the question to be answered or the immediate urgency that the decision of January 31, 2007, partially modified by a decision of February 15, 2007, which includes the imposition of a burden under penalty with respect to overrule explicitly asked noise because activities from the building, suspended or otherwise produced an interim measure was taken.

Grounds of objection / interim measure
He submits that the primary defendant is not competent to impose a burden under penalty.  In support of this allegation he performs the following.
  First, the burden primarily aimed at redressing the violation of Article 4.1.5 of the General Local Regulation of the town of Zutphen (APV).  This article provides no authority for the provision of further limits / noise.  Given this defendant may not take enforcement action against exceeding the noise standards set by him.  Alternatively, the applicant that if jack can be searched by the Decision residential and verblijfsgebouwen Environment, rule 1.1.2, introductory and b of the annex to this decision in this case prevents this connection.  Indeed, it is stated that in determining noise, the noise in support of calls to profess the religion or beliefs or attending religious or philosophical meetings and lijkplechtigheden and sound in connection with the holding of these meetings or ceremonies, disregarded.

Secondly, all activities of the applicant protected by Article 6 of the Constitution.  The first paragraph of this article gives the possibility of limiting the freedom of religion, but only through a formal law.   Restrictions through one - fleshed - APV determination not to comply.  The case law cited by the defendant sees the exercise of freedom of religion outside buildings and places so they decided jurisprudence in this case does not apply.  The petitioner also refers to in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Ivbpr) enshrined freedom of religion. The imposition of the burden is premature because there is still no violation occurred.

If it is found that defendant does have jurisdiction to impose this burden, then the applicant alternatively that the inclusion of limits and the determination that violation of these limits to forfeiture of a penalty resulting in a single act is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.  Furthermore, there is no undue begunstigingstermijn.

At the meeting, the applicant claimed that the burden is unclear, what is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

Considerations of the voorzieningenrechter
Having regard to the provisions of Article 125 of the Municipalities Act in conjunction with Articles 5:21 and 5:32 of the Awb first defendant is competent to impose a burden under penalty if it is acted in violation of a legal requirement.  First, once it has been determined that such a violation exists, should be reviewed or defendant reasonably use of this power has been able to make.

Regarding the power to impose a burden under penalty, the President ruled the following.

Article 4.1.5, the first paragraph of the APV provides that it is prohibited to aircraft or audio or lichtapparaten into force, or acts in a manner that one or surrounding environment, for the sound or is caused lichthinder . The second paragraph of this article stipulates that the College of the ban waiver may be granted.
The ban does not apply, insofar as Article 2.4.16, based on the Environmental Management Act regulations, the Law noise, the Wegenverkeerswet 1994, the Zondagswet, the Penal Code, the Air Cargo, the road signs and traffic Rules 1990 or the applicable Vuurwerkbesluit be.

Between parties is not in dispute that the building activities can not be regarded as an establishment within the meaning of the Environmental Management Act and that the Article 4.1.5, the second paragraph of the APV said laws do not apply.  The President supports this view.

The term 'noise' is not further defined in the APV.  In order to assess whether there is noise, the defendant sought by the meetwijze and norms that are customary in authorisation companies.  In this case, the defendant sought by the standards of the Decision residential, and verblijfsgebouwen Environment and / or the Decision catering, sports and recreatieinrichtingen Environment. Unlike applicant shall conduct of this defendant. The President ruled in this context refers to the judgement of the Administrative Department of the State Council (hereinafter: the Department) by May 1, 2002, LJN AE2053. Now only connection defendant has sought to standards above Acts (Acts and the defendant is not fully applicable stated) is the editor of regulation 1.1.2, introductory and b of the annex to the Decision living and a verblijfsgebouwen Environment no such connection in the way. The President considers therefore that the defendant, by the narrowing of the term 'noise' in Article 4.1.5 of the APV connection has been able to find the noise standards for establishments within the meaning of the Environmental Management Act. Now, in this case there is a narrowing of an already prescribed standard (in Article 4.1.5 of the APV) and not of a new standards, missing the complaint of the plaintiff in this factual basis.

He submits that all activities protected by the freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Constitution and international treaties. In this respect, the President ruled the following.

Article 6, first paragraph of the Constitution provides that each entitled to have his religion or belief, individually or in community with others, free to profess, except everyone's responsibility under the law. The second paragraph of this article stipulates that the law concerning the exercise of this right outside buildings and private places can make rules to protect the health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder.

Given the wording of this article can this fundamental right, if not exercised outside buildings and private places, only be limited by a formal law without possibility of delegation.  This does not mean that all activities developed in the framework of the godsdienstbelijding in buildings and decided to place such protection encounter. The President refers to the ruling of the Department of January 5, 1996, published in AB 1996, 179, which also has defendant.  The argument of petitioner that this precedent in this case does not apply because this ruling only looks at religious gatherings in the open air (and therefore comes under Article 6, second paragraph of the Constitution) is not correct.  The Department has in this judgement in its considerations explicit reference to Article 6, first paragraph of the Constitution.

In this ruling, the Department determined that the - with the right to profess connected - a sound connex law, which must be distinguished from the right to profess sec and that subordinate.  This connexe right can in principle be limited by a municipal regulation as the APV.  In doing so, the following should be adhered to:
a. The restriction of the right to connexe sound is not related to the contents of the profess.
b. The restriction is necessary to ensure the interests that the legislation which limit the rest, aims to serve and does not go beyond in order to protect those interests strictly necessary.
c. The restriction does not go as far that of the right connexe no significant remains.

The President should examine whether the burden meets these criteria formulated by the Department.
The burden, as it was formulated in primary decision 1, reads - basically - as follows (underscore made by the Interim):

I. I.  For activities on your property that would be far surrender of the fundamental right of the connexe it right, as preparatory activities in churches, including the exercise of zangkoren and (brass) bands apply in the specified periods of the day as the noise limits as indicated below:

Table A-standards.

Wanneer moet worden geconstateerd dat op enig moment niet aan dit onderdeel van deze last wordt voldaan, verbeurt u van rechtswege een bedrag van € 1.000,- per constatering van de overschrijding van de geluidsnormen, tot een maximum van € 10.000,-. When should be noted that at any time not participating in this part of this burden is met, you automatically forfeits an amount of € 1,000, - a finding by the crossing of the noise, to a maximum of € 10,000, -.

II. II. Voor activiteiten in uw pand die aan het grondrecht connexe rechten raken, zoals het recht op geluidsversterking, geldt: For activities in your premises that meet the fundamental rights connexe touching, such as the right to sound, holds:
1. 1. In de vermelde perioden van de dag als maxima de geluidniveaus als onderstaand vermeld onder A. In the mentioned periods of the day as the noise limits as indicated below at A.
2. 2. In afwijking van het gestelde onder 1. Notwithstanding the provisions under 1. is op alle zondagen en maximaal vijf feestdagen per kalenderjaar gedurende één eredienst een maximaal geluidsniveau toegestaan als onderstaand vermeld onder B. on all Sundays and public holidays up to five per calendar year during a worship a maximum permissible noise level as indicated below under B.
3. 3. In afwijking van het gestelde onder 1. Notwithstanding the provisions under 1. en in aanvulling op het gestelde onder 2. and in addition to the alleged under 2. is op maximaal acht dagen naar keuze per kalenderjaar een maximaal geluidsniveau toegestaan als onderstaand vermeld onder B gedurende één activiteit gedurende maximaal vier uren, mits hiervoor vooraf ontheffing is verleend op basis van artikel 4.1.5 APV. is at a maximum of eight days per calendar year to choose a maximum permissible noise level as indicated below B during an activity for a maximum of four hours, provided that prior exemption was granted on the basis of Article 4.1.5 APV.

Tabel met A-normen en B-normen. Table A-and B-standards standards.

When should be noted that at any time not participating in this part of this burden is met, you automatically forfeits an amount of € 1,000, - a finding by the crossing of the noise, to a maximum of € 10,000, -.

At the meeting showed that this burden is not clear. Agents also defendants were initially divided on the scope of the burden.  After explanation of the defendants Agents voorzieningenrechter assume that the defendant has the following aims with the burden.

There is a distinction between three categories of activity.
Category 1 includes activities that directly affect the fundamental right.  This means the holding of worship without sound.
Category 2 includes activities that the right to sound (one on the fundamental right connex) touching.  This means strengthening the sound during worship.
Category 3 includes activities that would be far surrender of the right or the right to connexe sound.  This means all activities other than the worship.

The burden is not on category 1 so that no maximum allowable noise.   The burden will be only category 2 and 3.
For category 2 apply to single explicitly defined times / situations, the (higher) B standards.  This is a worship on Sundays and public holidays worship at five per calendar year.  It may be waived for an activity of up to four hours at a maximum of eight days per calendar year.  For the 'extra' worship, the (lower)-A standards.
For category 3 apply fully the (lower)-A standards.

Verweerders gemachtigde heeft ter zitting een aantal voorbeelden gegeven ter verduidelijking van de reikwijdte van de last. The defendants told the House authorized a number of examples to clarify the scope of the burden.
•  Het zingen (zonder microfoon) en het spelen van brassbands (niet versterkte muziek) tijdens erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 1, zodat hiervoor geen maximale geluidsnormen gelden. • The singing (no microphone) and playing brassband (not enhanced music) during worship comes under category 1, so no maximum noise.
•  Het bespelen van een elektrische gitaar (versterkte muziek) tijdens erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 2. • The play of an electric guitar (enhanced music) during worship comes under category 2.
•  Het bespelen van een elektrische gitaar, het spelen van brassbands en het zingen (al dan niet met een microfoon) buiten erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 3. • The play of an electric guitar, playing and singing brassband (with or without a microphone) outside worship comes under category 3.

The President noted that the scope of the burden he first became clear after the defendants had authorized this explanation and after examples were discussed.  Such unclear burden is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.  Even so, primarily in decision 1 objection does not be maintained unchanged.  In the last defendant will object so that it should formulate an explanation and that is susceptible to all parties, including the applicant and third-party activities for which clear what standards apply.  The President notes in this context also that uncertainty about the scope of the burden can be prevented by the terms "like" and "including" no longer in use but explicitly describe what actions the burden see.

At the meeting, the applicant claimed that he, in order to meet the load, a large number of worship such as funeral and huwelijksdiensten, can no longer hold, given the maximum allowable number of worship. T In this respect, the President ruled that the holding of worship sec is not limited.  Religious Communities, without sound, fall under category 1 and are no noise in the burden.  The burden is because, in terms of worship, but only on the strengthening of the sound during this worship.

The last show that over a number of worship (one per Sunday + one every five public holidays per calendar year) and for eight operations per calendar year, the broader B standards. At the meeting showed that the applicant holds worship more than the preceding one, so during this' extra 'worship within the lower A-standards should be stayed.  It is not clear whether voorzieningenrechter fulfilling the A-standards implies that during such worship no use of a microphone.  If that were the case, which the predecessor to the faithful only onversterkt may speak, there may be violating the above a threshold and / or c criterion.  Indeed, for the right to his faith / beliefs to profess in community with others to use, it is understandable that he is required or he can be heard.  Not clear is whether the standards are lower A-sufficiency.

Given the above voorzieningenrechter can not assess whether the burden is contrary to freedom of religion, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution.

Primary 1 decision, because of the ambiguity of the scope of the burden and uncertainty due to worship or where the A-standards must be met has been an infringement of religious freedom, objected not be maintained unchanged.  The President will also suspend this decision than to 6 weeks after the defendant has taken a decision on the appeal of the applicant.

With a view to the finals desire to dispute the voorzieningenrechter will also discuss the remaining land.

He submits that the imposition of a burden is premature because there is no violation of the alleged noise has been made.  In this respect, the President ruled that the figure in the jurisprudence of the last preventive under penalty qualification (including the Department on January 25, 2006, AB 2006, 229).  A load may preventively, before the last defined offence has been committed, be imposed if there is a danger of violation of a concrete by or under the Act made provision that is virtually certain likelihood will take place and if that offence in the decision can be described with that degree of clarity from the viewpoint of legal certainty is required. In this case it is clear from the documents that the applicant is not prepared adequately acoustic measures to meet the prescribed noise.   Indeed, plaintiff has only the upstairs around isolated and the isolation of the great hall consists only of insulating glazing.  Furthermore the applicant to defendant indicated that he's activities, with sound work will resume.  The violation of the noise will therefore virtually certain probability. Where exactly is a defendant in violation will have to indicate clearly the burden.

He submits that the defendant in the burden under penalty has no begunstigingstermijn.  This complaint is outdated now defendant in primary decision 2 still has a begunstigingstermijn.

To sum up the judge's preliminary voorzieningenrechter that defendant has rightly deemed competent to impose a burden under penalty.  The burden could be no objection maintained unchanged because of uncertainty one of the scope of the burden (violation of the principle of legal certainty) and the other in advance because it is not clear whether there is contrary to religious freedom under Article 6 of the Constitution.  In the next decision-making in the last defendant objection will be editing so that the scope of the burden for all parties is clear.  Furthermore, defendant must consider whether to worship, which must be met in the A-standards, the use of sound through a microphone by the predecessor for allowing him to present the believers will be understandable, can be satisfied with this A-standards.

Consequently, there has been justified primarily decide to stay 1 and 2.

Having regard to the provisions of Article 8:84, fourth paragraph, in conjunction with article 8:75 of the Awb, the President ruled the defendant's fair to condemn the costs incurred in reasonably applicant has had to make in connection with the consideration of this request, the cost of third professional granted legal aid (2 points at € 322, -) and travel expenses of the three representatives of the applicant to appear in court.

Certainly, therefore, is as follows.


4. Decision
The President of the Court Almelo,

Right way:

- Reject the application for interim injunction to suspend primary and decisions 1 and 2 to 6 weeks after the forthcoming decision on the objection in the prescribed form has been made;
- Condemns defendant in the litigation expenses incurred by the applicant, which costs shall be determined at € 691.20 by the town of Zutphen payable to the applicant;
- Understands that the town of Zutphen in the applicant Registry at € 285, - reimburse.

Against this judgement is no further appeal.

Thus given by mr WMB Elferink, in the presence of Mr. AEM Lever as a registrar.

Transcript sent on March 30, 2007
AW AW

18. CONCLUSION. The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer. Referring to the grounds 1 to 17 what grounds here as repeated and inserted be considered

The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer. The complainant in violation of Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO a number of procedural safeguards that everyone should enjoy "in determining his civil rights and obligations" or "in determining the merits of a criminal prosecution against him" has wrongly NOT .

The complainant has not received the following guarantees:

1. The right to an independent and impartial court. The impartiality of the court must show beyond any doubt, because he has to judge about others.
2. The right to a fair and public hearing of his case. A fair treatment means that among the adversary proceeding manner. This requires that the parties are aware of all the arguments and evidence presented to the court and that they can discuss this for the court.
3. The requirement of independence and impartiality is particularly strict rated: "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." Firstly, the judicial system and the courts are structured so that in respect of the litigants no doubt about the independence and impartiality of the court may arise (objective or structural impartiality). Then the judge may not personally biased (subjective or personal impartiality) or put them under pressure.

The State of the Netherlands in view of the above, together with FACTS and EXAMPLES does not meet the requirement in this case to offer a citizen plaintiff J. Hop Ermelo The Netherlands a fair trial.

The complainant requests that each complaint based on International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III

COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

Page 26. Under the 1503 procedure, the Commission has the mandate to examine a consistent pattern of gross and reliable attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms ocurring in any country of the world. Any individual or group claiming to be the victim of such human right violations may submit a com,plaint, as may any other person or group with with direct and reliable knowledge of such violations.

COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1

Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him

Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

against The Netherlands to be declared well founded.

Yours sincerely,

J. Hop

Joubertstraat 24, 3851 DM Ermelo, The Netherlands

Productions:

Productions:

 

10 september 2008 Complaint J. Hop The Netherlands to the United Nations. Complaint is based on International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III articles 14,1, 14.3, 14.4, 17 and 19 and page 26 complaint procedures Fact Sheet No 7 (Rev. 1)
712	COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7 COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law. Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference
701	Production 1. Call Zutphen District Court for hearing without trial file for Hop in violation of Article 6 ECHR and 14 BUPO
702	Production 2. Letter J. Hop 15 oktober 2007 with a request to forward names of judges within 1 week after the date
703	Production 3. Mr. Letter Registrar October 18, 2007 with the names of the three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck Zutphen District Court that the case against Hop on 5 november 2007 at 09:30 hours deal
704	Production 4. Objection Hop three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck
705	Production 5. Letter Zutphen District Court to Hop which is informed that his request for disqualification should further motivate
706	Production 6. NO COPY process-verbal case number 89285 KGRK 07-665 Zutphen District Court hearing objection Hop avaible
707	Production 7. Pleitnotities Hop with detailed justification objection three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck Zutphen District Court that the case against Hop on 5 november 2007 at 09:30 hours deal
708	Production 8. Objection Hop 3 Zutphen court judges declared UNFOUNDED on 5 november 2007 zaaknr. 89285 KGRK 07-665 89285
709	History! Procedures Rb Zutphen against Hop hearing without trial file for Hop in violation of Article 6 ECHR and 14 BUPO
	Omroep Gelderland 180608 Everything from the cabinet, informative TV broadcast over the objection of the childjudge
710	History! Complaint September 1 J. Hop Ermelo (Netherlands) v unfounded objection Zutphen District Court at the United Nations
711	This complaint was already received at your Office on 5 september 2008 in ENGLISH language and returned with a letter "After careful consideration of the contents of your petion (communicatyion/complaint) we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Inited Nations Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the reasons indicated on the back of this letter: "The Human Rights Committee is not generally in a positions to review the evaluation of facts and evidence bij the national courts and authorities, nor can it review the interpretation of domestic legislation" along with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 and Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

Wraking van rechters wegens objectieve partijdigheid! Kinderrechters overleggen met jeugdzorg buiten hoorzitting om!
JH	Wie is Jan Hop? Antwoord: Bekijk uitzending Omroep Gelderland start afspelen uitzending op 09:28 over wraken rechters
710	Lachwekkend! Kinderbescherming zit niet meer bij rechter aan tafel. (1) (12) Lachwekkend! Nu bellen deze vertegenwoordigers van de Staat met de kinderrechter buiten de hoorzitting om voordat een verzoek wordt ingediend! (101) (124) (180) Lachwekkend! UN heeft nog steeds niet op klacht van Hop tegen Nederland beslist als representatief voorbeeld van "corruptie van coalities" tussen UN en Nederland waarbij wraking van rechters die zaak behandelen waarin zij zelf belanghebbenden zijn door de Verenigde Naties wordt afgedekt! (95)
653	1. Klacht naar President rechtbank geen ontvangstbevestiging binnen 14 dagen van ingeleverde procedure bij rechtbank 2. Klacht naar President rechtbank geen NAMEN RECHTERS in oproep vermeld
500	TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN! Hop bewijst dat rechtbanken en jeugdzorg overleggen in welke zaak Hop procesvertegenwoordiger is!
621	Het is essentieel een wrakingsverzoek van een rechter steeds in een hoger beroep op te nemen
435	Klopt de feitelijke chronologische weergave hoorzitting in het PV na WRAKING (605) van een rechter?
164	Staat in PV en beschikking welke personen zijn geweigerd bij hoorzitting achter gesloten deuren met motivatie rechtbank?
605	Wraking kinderrechter omdat de kinderrechter weigert op hoorzitting eerst op de VOORVRAGEN te beslissen
610	IDENTIFICATIEPLICHT RECHTER! Wraking rechter omdat de rechter weigert om haar/zijn naam te vertellen
611	Wraking KIR vertegenwoordiger BJZ/RVDK blijft voor/tijdens schorsing/na hoorzitting bij kinderrechter zitten
095	Wraking ongegrond maar Hop bewijst kinderrechters in Nederland zijn RECHTERS, AANKLAGERS en BELANGHEBBENDEN
621	Rechter rechtbank Zutphen heeft geen vertrouwen in collega rechters en wraakt drie rechters
489	Wraking 1, Nienhuis/Leenders WRAKEN kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
173	Wraking 2, Nienhuis/Leenders WRAKEN kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
247	Wraking 3, Nienhuis/Leenders WRAKEN kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
254	Wraking 4, Nienhuis/Leenders WRAKEN kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
226	Wraking 5, Nienhuis/Leenders WRAKEN kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
004	Wraking, Struyck wraakt kinderrechter met Hop als procesvertegenwoordiger
338	Advocaat Laura Dekker vindt kinderrechter ook partijdig en wraakt de kinderrechter!
718	Waarom zaten wethouders, raadsleden, andere kandidaten in stembureaus verkiezingen gemeenteraad 2010 met stemhokjes zonder gordijn?

Verkiezingen en verkiezingsformulieren in Nederland, problemen met partijdige rechter? U kunt ook meedoen met de provinciale verkiezingen 2011!