European Council of Oligarch Rights - Yukos

European Council of Oligarch Rights - Yukos https://www.rt.com/business/215155-russia-accepts-court-verdict/ Russia ‘forced to accept’ €1.86bn compensation for former shareholders of oil giant Published time: 17 Dec, 2014 13:02 Russia has agreed to pay €1.86 billion in compensation to former Yukos shareholders after the European "The judges have made the decision. We are forced to accept it. We believe it is unreasonable, but there’s nothing we can do," said Konovalov as quoted by RIA. At the same time he said Russia is not obliged to abide by the decisions of the ECHR, adding that the enforcement of decisions is ‘goodwill’ on the part of a member country of the Council of Europe. "Life will show to what extent this decision will be enforced in Russia," he said. On Tuesday the ECHR ruled against the Ministry of Justice appeal to overturn the July 2014 decision. The court then ordered Russia to pay the compensation. Russia must now pay €1.86 billion (US$2.51 billion) to the former shareholders of Russia's once largest private oil company for unfair tax proceedings, which allegedly led to the liquidation of Yukos in 2007. The compensation sum was calculated on the basis of fines imposed on Yukos by the Ministry of Taxes and Assessments in 2000 and 2001 following a tax audit. A part of the seven percent execution fee levied against the company was included as well. Another ruling by the International Arbitration Court in the Netherlands has ended a decade long case brought by former Yukos shareholders which ordered Russia to pay about $50 billion in damages. The Yukos oil company existed from 1993 to 2007. In August 2006 it was declared bankrupt at the request of a syndicate of foreign banks to which Yukos owed about $500 million. Later this debt was purchased by Rosneft. In 2007 the company's property was sold at auction to cover its debts. Yukos was dissolved on November 21, 2007. https://www.rt.com/business/215155-russia-accepts-court-verdict/ Council of Europe f. May 1949 founding states: Britain Ireland France Italy Luxemburg Netherlands Belgium Denmark Norway Sweden Greece & Turkey join 10 months later Iceland & Germany the following year currently 47 member states European Convention on Human Rights drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe entered into force on 3 September 1953 -- international treaty -- fundamental rights & freedoms -- compensations imposed under ECHR large -- Russia to pay excess of $2 billion in damages to shareholders of Yukos   all European states currently members council *except states not recognised *except Belarus, Vatican & Kazakhstan observer states: USA & Japan -- criticised b/c both apply death penalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe COMMENT From what I've read, it's the Russians that need to be compensated. Russia became a member state of the Council of Europe in 1996, but as the Council has no enforcement capacity, Russia ought to tell the Council to get stuffed. Council membership is overrated, especially when you're being economically sanctioned by all these a$$holes.

Sovereign State Russia: Russia Constitutional Court Supremacy Over International Court Rulings

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://www.rt.com/politics/325964-putin-gives-russian-constitution-priority/ Putin gives Russian Constitution priority over international court rulings Published time: 15 Dec, 2015 10:10 President Vladimir Putin has signed into law the bill allowing the Constitutional Court to overrule the decisions of international courts if such decisions contradict the principle of supremacy of the Russian Constitution. The new act published on the government website on Tuesday reads that the Constitutional Court will look into every decision of any intergovernmental body based on an international treaty and find if it matches the Russian Constitution and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by it. Upon such consideration the Constitutional Court can allow the decision to be executed in Russia, in full or in part, or ban its execution – also in full or in part. The ban would automatically cancel any national acts allowing the execution of the unconstitutional ruling. The law has been developed and drafted in order to fulfill the mid-July ruling of the Russian Constitutional Court reading that the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) must be individually approved and only carried out if they do not contradict basic Russian law. In late 2013, the Russian Constitutional Court ruled that it had the right, but not an obligation to decide on the execution of contradictory ECHR decisions in Russia. The July decision expanded the supremacy of the Constitutional Court over foreign judiciaries and international treaties, and established the priority of the Constitution in general. https://www.rt.com/politics/325964-putin-gives-russian-constitution-priority/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Hey, Europe: ❤️‍  This is what a sovereign nation looks like. ꕤ

British Government Observes International Law Regarding Netanyahu Immunity | Violates International Law On Political Asylum Granted to Assange

Petition  Benjamin Netanyahu to be arrested for war crimes when he arrives in London Benjamin Netanyahu is to hold talks in London this September. Under international law he should be arrested for war crimes upon arrival in the U.K for the massacre of over 2000 civilians in 2014 Sign this petition 76,065 signatures SOURCE | here SOURCE http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/british-government-benjamin-netanyahu-immune-from-arrest/ British Government: Benjamin Netanyahu immune from arrest Aug 22, 2015 RINF Alternative News As the petition for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reaches in excess of 75,000 signatures, the British Government has issued an official statement which clears the war criminal of any wrong doing, despite tens of thousands of UK citizens calling for his arrest for the massacre of more than 2000 civilians in 2014. Today the British Government issued this statement: Under UK and international law, visiting heads of foreign governments, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have immunity from legal process, and cannot be arrested or detained. The British Government has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as head of the Israeli Government, to visit the UK in September. Under UK and international law, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, including Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction. We recognise that the conflict in Gaza last year took a terrible toll. As the Prime Minister said, we were all deeply saddened by the violence and the UK has been at the forefront of international reconstruction efforts. However the Prime Minister was clear on the UK’s recognition of Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. We condemn the terrorist tactics of Hamas who fired rockets on Israel, built extensive tunnels to kidnap and murder, and repeatedly refused to accept ceasefires. Israel, like any state, has the right to ensure its own security, as its citizens also have the right to live without fear of attack. The UK consistently urged Israel to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, to exercise restraint, and to help find ways to bring the situation to an end. The UK continues to urge the parties to give priority to reaching a durable solution for Gaza which addresses the underlying drivers of conflict, and to take the necessary practical steps to ensure Gaza’s reconstruction and economic recovery. We welcome the fact that Israel is conducting internal investigations into specific incidents during Operation Protective Edge. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing those responsible must be held accountable whatever their position in society. Both parties must also demonstrate robust and credible internal investigations which are in line with international standards. We have also encouraged the Israeli authorities, as we do all countries, to cooperate with the independent Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the preliminary examination into the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 13 June, 2014, whilst noting that Israel is not a State Party to the ICC. The UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship, built on decades of cooperation between our two countries across a range of fields. Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the achievement of a two-state solution, based on 1967 borders. We continue to believe that negotiations will be necessary in order to achieve this, and that both parties need to focus on steps that are conducive to peace. The UK Government will reinforce this message to Mr Netanyahu during his visit. SOURCE http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/british-government-benjamin-netanyahu-immune-from-arrest/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Britain’s David Cameron and his government are selective when it comes to observing international law. Israel may commit large-scale civilian slaughter with impunity, and David Cameron's Britain is in full support.  But, of course.  That's to be expected. Cameron relies on 'international law' in this instance, to justify Britain’s refusal to act against Israel. On the other hand, Britain doesn't have the same regard for international law when it comes to the political asylum granted by Ecuador to Julian Assange. 1. The Right of a State to Grant Asylum. The right of a state to grant asylum is well established in international law. It follows from the principle that every sovereign state is deemed to, have  exclusive control over its territory and hence over persons present in its territory. One of the implications of this generally recognized rule is that every sovereign state has the right to grant or deny asylum to persons located within its boundaries.' Traditionally, thus, in international law, the right of asylum has been viewed as the right of a state, rather than the right of an individual.  There is little dispute as to this general principle of international law. It is confirmed in international and regional instruments as well as in state practice. First, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in Article 14(1) inter alia the right of each individual to "enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".  The late Professor Hersch Lauterpacht noted that this wording was introduced by the British delegation, interpreting it as meaning "the right of every state to offer refuge and to resist all demands for extradition.".. Professor Lauterpacht commented that such a right is one, "which every state.., possesses under international law. Second, the Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1967 provides in Article 1(1) that, "[a]sylum granted by a State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,... shall be respected by all other States."  Further, the Article 1(3) of this Declaration vests the state of asylum with authority "to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum."   [...] Under international law, states have a right to grant asylum and a duty not to prevent those who wish to emigrate or seek asylum elsewhere from doing so. SOURCE |  PDF - Duke University | here Ecuador relies on Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights (1948), among an extensive number of other instruments  | here British hypocrites own words regarding asylum here: "the right of every state to offer refuge and to resist all demands for extradition." Check out what else the sneaky, hypocritical, British government is getting up to: Tories plan to withdraw UK from European convention on human rights [Chris] Grayling said a Tory government would withdraw from the convention if parliament failed to secure the right to veto judgments from the European court of human rights (ECHR). Tories would reverse more than half a century’s tradition of human rights authority residing in Europe by giving parliament the right to veto judgments. The authority of the court in Strasbourg would be severely curtailed, with parliament given the final say in deciding whether or not to adopt ECHR decisions. SOURCE |  here Move also clears the way for military abuses: "The impact would be wide-ranging. UK armed forces would cease to be subject to human rights legislation overseas"  [ibid] ꕤ

Privacy International Lodges Legal Challenge To Official Secrecy Surrounding GCHQ Spying

Privacy International Lodges Legal Challenge To Official Secrecy Surrounding GCHQ Spying Although the scale of the surveillance being carried out by the NSA and GCHQ is daunting, digital rights groups are starting to fight back using the various legal options available to them. That's particularly the case for the UK, where activists are trying to penetrate the obsessive secrecy that surrounds GCHQ's spying activities. Back in December, we wrote about three groups bringing an action against GCHQ in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and how Amnesty International is using the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) to challenge the spying. Another organization that filed a complaint against the UK government at the IPT is Privacy International. But not content with that, it has now taken further legal action, this time in order to obtain information about GCHQ's role in the "Five Eyes" system, the global surveillance club made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: In order to shed light on this secret intelligence-sharing agreement, which effectively binds the Five Eyes as one intelligence agency, Privacy International, represented by Leigh Day & Co solicitors, filed a legal challenge against the British Government in the European Court of Human Rights. Europe's highest human rights court is the most appropriate venue for such an international agreement, and has a strong history of ensuring intelligence agencies are compliant with human rights law. This follows repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain this information using traditional channels: The challenge comes after Privacy International filed Freedom of Information requests in all Five Eyes countries compelling them to release the details of the agreement, which has a profound impact on the enjoyment and fulfilment of human rights around the world. Governments in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand denied to publish the secret agreement. In the United Kingdom, GCHQ invoked a blanket exemption that excuses it from any obligation to be transparent about its activities. The same exemption was also invoked by the agency when Privacy International asked for mundane information such as GCHQ's cafeteria menu. Privacy International obviously hopes that the ECHR will issue a judgment that the UK government is wrong to withhold the information about how GCHQ operates within the Five Eyes system. The trouble is, even if the ECHR does rule in favor of Privacy International, it's extremely unlikely that the UK government will take much notice. But as a way of ensuring that the spotlight remains on the disproportionate and unconstrained way that GCHQ is spying on citizens in the UK and around the world, it's as good as any. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140909/08452028462/privacy-international-lodges-legal-challenge-to-official-secrecy-surrounding-gchq-spying.shtml

Thought this was interesting.

But it looks like the outcome isn't much to look forward to, if the decision of the court can be ignored.