The secret cases of the Euicropean Court and The Commission of The Human Rights in Strasbourg. Press and TV refused in print it because it is the big politician scandal. that The European Court has been the last executive plats for the victims, that means the guillotine. I have manifested 5 years as means that I try inform You what the politicians had done of us and during the same time The European Court with The Commission of Human Rights had sealed ours cases confidential, they are closed for public, no one may see them. But for 5 year I have been trying to make it public for verification. they obstruct our case as means they did and still do the opposite of what I stand for.

In the name of justice has The European Court violated The convention of humans rights. Look! Why ours cases was closed for the public opinion and on the same way you have answer why the Commission of Human Rights had worked behind closed doors, the answer is that they even, do not touch our cases, they have been closed for ever and here is the term: "Confidential case!" also closed case for public, that means as you could not take them (the European Court and the Commission of Human Rights) for responsibility. "the term the Supreme court = Högsta Domstolen = Arbetsdomstolen in Sweden. The verdict is " The Supreme Court did not found the reason to take the case examination" and the Commission of Human Rights with the European Court tell that "those complaint had been before domestic courts". I only show for you 4 verdicts of Supreme Court in our cases are a lot of such verdict of Supreme Court I only show for you some exemplar .

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22982/93 by EWA MADEJ against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights, sitting in private as a Committee of three members pursuant to Article 20 para. 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, on 31 August 1994, the following members being present

MM. F. ERMACORA, President of the Committee
F. MARTINEZ
I. CABRAL PARRETO
Mr. N. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Committee
Unanimously decides as follows:

The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they have been submitted in the application introduced on 14 April 1993 and registered on 22 November 1993 under file No. 22982/93 and the other material submitted. However, insofar as the matters complained of have been substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 of the Convention.
Accordingly, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31932/96 by EWA MADEJ and Alica FAST against Sweden

The Committee or three members, set up by the European Commission of Human Rights pursuant to Article 20 para. 3 of the ~Convetion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, having noted that the above application has been transferred to it by the Commission , having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and having deliberated in private on 5 September 1996 , the following members being present
NM. A. WEITZEL, President of the Committee
N.
BRATZA
K. HERNDL
Mrs.
~. DOLLE, Secretary to the Ccmmittee
Unanimously decides as follows:
The Committee has examined the applicants complaints as they have been submitted in the application introducted on 16 February 1995 and registerad on 17 June 1996 under file No. 31932/96 and the other material submitted. The applicants complain, inter alia, that they have been denied social assistance and that the first applicant has been refused admission to certain educational institutions. They also complain about the handling of several cases before Swedish court and authorities . They invoke Articles 1, 2, 3, 4. 6, 8, 13,14 and 21 of the Convention and Aricle 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Committee has carefully examined the applicants complaints , First, it notes that many of them have already been submitted in a previous application( No. 22982/93) which had be declared inadmissible on i30 August 1994 because it was manifestly ill-founded. The Committee cannot deal with these matters again. Secondly, the Committee notes that, in some respectas, the applicants have not put their complaints fully before domestic courts and, for this reason, the applicants have not complied with the requirement under Article 26 of the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies. Lastly, the Committee notes, insofar as the applicants have made new complaints, that these are matters which either cannot be considered under the Convention, or have not been substantiated. Concequenntly, the Committee concludes that this application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocola. It follows that application must be rejected inaccordance with Article 27 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Committee President or the Committee
S . DOLLE A. WEITZEL
fdljd varav hovrättens besiut skall stâ fast.
Gullvi Axelsson
Foredraget 1995-01-26
tJppvisat och lamnat for expediering 1995-01-27
Per Jermsten Erland Hesslow
Bestyrks I tjansten:
Awl 1 vid tllstThdsprOvning
DAG FOR BESLUT Ma] nr 0 5121/94
1995-02-02
Stockholm
NARVARANDE
JIJSTITIERAD ~Jermsten
FOREDRAGANDE Hess 1 ow
REV IS IONSSEKRETERARE
PROTOKOLLFdRARE Axel sson
PARTER KLAGANDE
Ewa Madej, 510520-2203,
Kadettgatan 12 A, 254 55 HELSINGBORG
MOT PART
Helsingborgs kommun, Servicenämnd Norr,
Box 7153, 250 07 HELSINGBORG
Ombud: Anita Nordstrom, samma adress
SAKEN Tillstand till provning I hovrätt av mâl am skadestánd
OVERKLAGADE Hovrätten Over Skåne och Blekinge, avd 2, beslut
AVGORANDET den 19 oktober 1994 1 mâl T 573/94
Málet foredras.
Högsta domstolen finner ej skäl att meddela provningstillstând, I
HÖGSTA DOMSTOLEN PROTOKOLL Aktbil nr
Avd 1 vid tilistandsprovning
DAG FOR BESLUT Mâl nr 0 2060/94
1995-02-02
Stockholm
NARVARANDE Jermsten
JUST IT IERAD
FOREDRAGANDE Hessl ow
REV IS IONSSEKRETERARE
PROTOKOLLFORARE Axel sson
PARTER KLAGANOE
Ewa Madej, 510520-2203, Kadettgatan 12 A,
254 55 HELSINGBORG
SAKEN
Avvisande av taian
OVERKLAGADE Hovrátten Over Skáne och Blekinge, avd 2, beslut
AVGORANOET den 31 mars 1994 I mál 0 401/94
~iälet for'edras.
Hogsta domstolen finner ej skäl att meddela prOvningstillstând, I foljd varav hovràttens beslut skall stà fast.
tZullvi Axelsson
Foredraget 1995-01-26
Uppv~sat och ldmnat for expediering 1995-01-27
Per Jermsten Erland Hesslow
Bestyrks I tjansten:
OAG FOR BESLUT M~1 nr 0 2061/94 ~995-02-O2
Stockholm
NARVARANDE .Jermsten
JUSTITIERAD
FOREDRAGANDE Hesslow
REVISIONSSEKRETERARE
PROTOKOLLFöRARE Axel sson
PARTER KLAGANDE
1. Ewa Madej, 510520-2203,
Kadettgatan 12 A, 254 55 HELSINGBORG
2. Alicja Fast, 320114-9188, samma adress
SAKEN Avvisande av stamningsansOkan m m
OVERKLAGAOE Hovretten Over Skáne och Blekinge, avd 2,
AVGORANOET beslut den 31 mars 1994
i m~l 0 400/94
Màlet föredras.
Högsta domstolen finner ci skäl att meddela prövningstillstánd,
1 följd varav hovrattens beslut skall stá fast.
Oullvi Axelsson
Foredraget 1995-Ob-26
Uppvisat och lämnat fOr expediering 1995-01-27
Per Jermsten Frland Hesslow
Bestyrks I tjansten:
LISTE
DES DEMARCHES ENTREPRISES AUPRES DES AUTORITES SUEDOISES
(los dates sont cellos oil los decisions ont eté rcnduos)
1993
13 I 01/1993: Ministere do l'Education
29/03/1993: Deputé do Malmô (Membro du Parlement)
3 1/03/1993: Region do Malrnô
13/04/1993: Ministere do l'environnement
22/04/1993: Agcncc Nationalo pour I'Emploi
31/03/1993: Ministere do l'environnernent
17/05/1 993: R.B.B.
20/09/1993: Ministere do Ia Justice
20/10/1993: Ministere des Affaircs socialos
1994
03/01/1994: Assistance Judiciaire
OS 1 0 1/1994: Ministêre do Ia Justice
10/11/1994: Ministêre do l'Education
13/12/1994: Ministêre do I'Education
1995
02/02/1 995: Cour Supreme (Arret No 2060/ 94)
02/02/1995: Cour Supreme (Arret N0
3 206 1/ 94)
02/02/1995: Cour Supreme (Arret N~O 5121/94)
2 1/04/1995: Cour do Cassation
17/08/1995: Membres du Parlement
24/08/1995: Mcmbres du Parlement
1996
15/01/1996: MinistCre do la Justice
ARBETSDOMSTOLEN PROTOKOLL
M~1 nr B 79/94
Rotel 1:2 1995-04-21 Aktbil. 22
Föredragning
i Stockholm
DOMSTOLEN
Ove Sköllerholm, ordförande, Ulf E.Nilsson
och Alf Karlsson
FOREDRAGANDE/PROTOKOLLFORARE
biträdande sekreteraren Elise-Marie Donovan
PARTER (ej närvarande)
KLAGANDE
Alicja Fast
MOTPART
Ifö
Sanitär Aktiebolag
Ombud:
advokaten Bone Dahlberg
SAKEN
lonefordran; flu frãga om provningstillstãnd
OVERKLAGAD DOM
Kristianstads tingsrätts dom den 22 apnil 1994, DFT 185
Sedan málet föredragits fattar arbetsdomstolen följande
BESLUT
Arbetsdomstolen finner inte skãl meddela provningstillstând. Tingsrattens
2 dom står därför fast.
Som ovan Protokollet uppvisat