Statul ii da pensie speciala iar Panioglu ia banii si-l da pe stat in judecata…la CEDO…

0
3001
Lia Savonea

Ne scoatem palaria in fata CEDO si ne-o punem la loc in fata gestului gratuit si impardonabil ca un judecator-Daniela Panioglu (chiar daca are dreptul asta) sa dea in judecata Romania, care-i da un salariu de sute de mii de ron pe an, care-i deconteaza chiriile moral sau nu, care-i creeaza conditii de munca si remuneratii si statut social care se intorc tarii, care-i da pensii speciale… Panioglu Daniela -Judecator al Curtii de Apel a pierdut mai multe procese la viata ei-redam aici cateva aspecte importante dintr-unul dar si comentariul unei cititoare pe numele ei Mihaela Mazilu Babel care zice asa – “ Motivarea (CEDO  in cazul Panioglu versus Romania n.r.) este evidentă și consider că o încercare de a o aduce pe rolul Marii Camere e sortită clar eșecului. Mai mult, găsesc regretabil că unii judecători din România ( judecator Daniela Panioglu Curtea de Apel Bucuresti n.r)nu cunosc CEDO suficient încât să nu dea naștere la astfel de situații de fapt ce sunt apoi decise cu o unanimitate mai mare de trei”-Mihaela Mazilu Babel.

Panioglu are pretentia ca nu e oricine…si e clar ca nu este insa nu in sensul celor crezute de ea….

Redam in cateva cuvinte un extras din motivarea Panioglu versus Romania- proces intentat de Panioglu la CEDO si pierdut de Panioglu-CEDO  apreciind ca nu exista nici o incalcare a articolului 10 al Conventiei….Panioglu- o judecatoare usor de catalogat ca procesomana,violenta in limbaj si atitudini, agresiva in apreciere si self suficienta, cu un comportament usor de asimilat caracteristicilor narcisistice ale unor indivizi, cu o parere si grandomanie super elevata in raport cu propriile prestatii-judecatoresti dar si umane, sanctionata disciplinar de CSM, pierzand procese si situandu se in conflicte deschise cu colegi,aruncand cu dosare in /inspre( sic) colegi,avand conflicte  cu justitiabili, cu jurnalisti, semnand in presa cand ii convine si atacandu si colegii procurori sau judecatori in presa cand ii convine….Acesta este portretul unui judecator al Curtii de Apel Bucuresti. Un judecator cu atributii de libertate sau nu, de sanctiuni grele, de deposedare de capacitat financiare si averi…Speram ca dupa ce citeste aceste randuri- sa se indrepte si sa ne dea motive sa o creditam din nou. Pana atunci, ne scoatem palaria in fata CEDO si ne o punem inapoi in fata lui Panioglu.Redam cateva aspecte mai importante mai jos direct in engleza pentru ca cititorii nostrii sunt educati si poligloti…

”Extras din recenta hotărîre a aceleiași Curți Europene a Drepturilor Omului, luată în unanimitate (Case of Panioglu v. România – Application no. 33794/14):

“111. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant published the impugned article under her own name, with her title as a judge attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal alongside it (see paragraph 6 above). Therefore, in examining the interference in question the Court will attach particular importance to the position held by the applicant, her statements, and the context in which they were made (see Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 75, 9 July 2013, and Baka, cited above, § 166).
(…)

121. The Court notes, however, that the IJ did not take into account only the code-of-conduct penalty when it produced its negative report of April 2017 concerning the applicant (see paragraph 49 above). Also, the applicant has accepted that the penalty in question, taken on its own, would not automatically prevent her from applying for a promotion to the Court of Cassation in the foreseeable future (see paragraph 71 above). Moreover, it does not seem that the applicant was prevented by the penalty either from applying to participate or from actually participating in the promotion competitions (see paragraph 48 above), but she nevertheless decided to withdraw.

122. The Court takes note of the reasons put forth by the applicant for her decision to withdraw from the 2017 competition (see paragraph 85 above). Given the findings above, the Court is not however prepared to speculate on the possible outcome of this or any future competitions or whether the decision finding that the applicant had breached Article 18 § 2 of the Code would result, on its own, in her automatic disqualification or dismissal from competitions.

123. Reiterating its view on the chilling effect that a fear of sanction may have on the exercise of freedom of expression (see, for instance, Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-VII; Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 54, ECHR 2002-II; and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos.

23145/93 and 25091/94, § 714, 13 November 2003), the Court is of the view that, even if the decision taken in the code-of-conduct proceedings may have had a certain “chilling effect” on the exercise of the applicant’ freedom of expression, the decision was not excessive in the circumstances of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Antonescu v. Romania, no. 31029/05, § 33, 21 February 2012, and Di Giovanni, cited above, § 83).

124. In the light of the foregoing and the particular importance it attaches to the position held by the applicant, the Court considers that the domestic authorities struck a fair balance 6 of 8 between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the reputation or rights of others, on the one hand, and the need to protect the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on the other. The interference was thus “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

125. The Court’s finding is without prejudice to the applicant’s decision to pursue to the end the administrative proceedings she had initiated against the CSM, seeking to have Article 18 § 2 of the Code struck down (see paragraphs 45-47) above). If successful, given Judge G.B.’s experience with similar proceedings 54 and 55 above), it seems that they could give the applicant the opportunity to have the penalty imposed on her annulled and removed from her professional file.

126. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.”

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here