Dear President Siofra O'Leary, Your Honor,
In the interest of our country and the legality of the judiciary, I appeal to you, trusting in your understanding. In particular, sections 615, 619 and 650 of the attached Code of Criminal Procedure restrict the right to legal remedy.
Yours sincerely,
László Radnóti
Dear President Sioffra O'Leary, Your Honor,
Negligent judges of the European Court of Human Rights - Judge Gilberto Felici and Judge Jovan Ilievski - declared inadmissible my regular, well-founded and exceptionally important applications Nos. 1310/24 and 743/25, respectively. Both of my applications were dismissed on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, since the applicant failed to raise before competent domestic authorities, either in form or in substance and in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements, the complaints that were made to the Court. It is evidently based on the assumption that I failed to raise properly before the Constitutional Court, acting as a single judge, dismissed my constitutional complaints on this basis. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court, my complaints. Though, the decision of the Constitutional Court was not well-founded.
Due to the dismissal of my well-founded applications, I am now in immediate physical danger. Psychiatrists, collaborating with dishonest prosecutors, have initiated civil non-litigation proceedings to order my compulsory medical treatment. My medical treatment is unjustified, the diagnosis is unfounded because I am mentally healthy. During my pre-trial detention on false charges, I suffered 162 days of compulsory medical treatment, which resulted in a terrible condition and made me lose 50 kg. Unjustified compulsory medical treatment is torture.
The European Court of Human Rights does not always manage to act with the competence expected of it. The application of the dying lawyer Dániel Karsai was heard by the Grand Chamber out of compassion, even though his application should have been rejected, since the EU does not guarantee the right to euthanasia. Meanwhile, applications of extraordinary importance are rejected with transparent pretexts by naive judges of the European Court of Human Rights, blindly trusting in the wisdom of Hungarian constitutional judges. Yet, our Constitutional Court does not intend to protect the right to a fair trial against unfounded verdicts due to erroneous evidence assessment.
The European Court of Human Rights rejected both of my applications because my constitutional complaint was rejected in a single-judge proceeding by our incompetent constitutional judges. In both of my complaints, which had different subjects, I wanted to expose the practices of the prosecution, according to which the prosecutors representing the prosecution in important cases for the prosecution, based on the idea of the Deputy Chief Criminal Prosecutor Tibor Ibolya, reach unfounded verdicts based on invalid proof of the defendant's guilt with the cooperation of stupid judges, who are protected by the court leaders when necessary.
Act XC of 2017 on Code of Criminal Procedure, with its provisions that prohibit the attack on the facts, restricts effective legal remedies in violation of the Fundamental Law, and promotes the entry into force and concealment of unfounded judgments. In a motion for review, the facts established by a final and binding decision cannot be challenged at all, which is why the review by the Curia is often a meaningless cynical comedy: The accused is guilty because he committed the crime as charged according to the facts established by the final verdict. The facts established by the final verdict cannot be challenged in a motion for review.
I had hoped that the European Court of Human Rights would protect human rights. I was disappointed. The European Court of Human Rights is making intolerable compromises with the judiciary of countries that have no record of the rule of law, unworthy of the legacy of the Enlightenment. Please respond publicly as soon as possible!
Yours sincerely,
László Radnóti
