welcome aboard.
EUROPEAN COURT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Conseil de l’Europe - Council of Europe - Consiglio d’Europa
Strasbourg, France - Strasburgo, Francia
APPEAL
I - The parties
THE PLAINTIFF
Name: Giovanni
Surname: Maselli
Sex: male
Nationality: Italian
Profession: unemployed
Date and place of birth: 19/08/1963 - Genoa
(Italy)
Domicile: Piazza Bruno, 4 - 16010 - Isoverde
- GE
Telephone: +3910790464 - +393489194588
THE OTHER PARTY DEFENDANT
Italian State - Italy
II - Exhibition of the facts
Several years ago I realised a multimedia project on the Genovese historical centre to be sold, on occasion of the event “Genoa 2004: European capital of culture” I looked for a connection “in” thinking I had found it in a catholic bishop of the city. In Italy there is no hope of working without going through this passage.
The bishop in question sent me to a man in a position of trust at the city Curia who indicated persons who were friends at the Councillorship for Tourism of the Region of Liguria in quality as co-sponsor of the event but right when the negotiations appeared to reach the signing of a contract everything came to a standstill.
A couple of weeks later after the standstill I was stopped in a bar downtown by a person often seen in the church of S. Sisto in the historic centre who blackmailed me subordinating the contract to my willingness to do volunteer work. I refused because blackmail is a crime and I reported it to the magistracy (attachment 1) but the same dismissed it immediately with the motivation that the fact did not consist in being a crime (attachment 2).
I asked for clarifications from the persons previously contacted but these got rid of my requests hastily saying that what I proposed was the exclusive competence of Datasiel, a company I was told was owned by the Region of Liguria which however results to be a SPA which the region possesses only 50% of but passes it off as a Public Entity in such a way as to remove it from the community discipline in the subject of competition between companies and attribute to it the exclusive of the supply of computer services with the special regional Law (attachment 3). So I reported the deceit to the European Commission (attachment 4) which began a procedure of violation against the Italian state further to which it summoned the government in Rome at the end of 2003 which replied the following spring promising to transform Datasiel Spa into a in-house structure of the Region of Liguria and to remove it from the market (attachment 5).
It promised this in order to obtain dismissal of the procedure but took good care not to alter the object of the enterprise which remained on the market participating and even sometimes winning international tenders (attachment 6). In addition when the Commission asked DOCUP Liguria whether there were activities of Datasiel Spa financed with European funds the regional entity lied saying NO when only in relation to the Objective 2 the amount of the financing was equal to little less than 20 million Euro only in the quinquennial 2000-2005 (attachment 7). This not to mention the development of the computer network in the Port Ned Med project entirely financed by the Interregional III.
The understanding that this way of handling community funds in Italy represents the norm, so much so that only in Genoa there are about ten companies operating in analogous conditions and all of the catholic volunteer associations live on community contributions without even having the corporate franchise to be able to receive them (attachments 8a and 8b), has convinced the interested parties to look for a way to free themselves of my presence which they then found in a surveillance camera videocassette where a moment of anger is aired during a television talk show and the television viewers made believe to be the proof of mental disassociation which I am to be afflicted with.
I do not watch television but a private investigation has revealed this was initially done by a “no-global” priest who was worried about losing financing of a project on the Mediterranean level already begun but the episodes dedicated to me have apparently been many and in the end pretty much all institutions participated.
During these debates almost certainly produced by the structure of Maurizio Costanzo for Mediaset of Silvio Berlusconi the guests committed the crime of defamation via television, ideological forgery and instigation to commit crimes by the television viewers invited to start whistling, shake bunches of keys or otherwise irritate me every time they saw me for the purpose of causing that moment of disassociation necessary to take measures against my person to safeguard social security.
It goes without saying that my life was transformed into a nightmare. After months of psychological torture I wrote another report to the magistracy (attachment 9) which the Public Minister would like to dismiss because according to the investigations he says nothing has been verified (attachment 10); I deposited an act of opposition but uselessly considering that the GIP affirmed how the facts relative the narrative do not constitute a crime (attachment 11).
For two years I have by now been living at the mercy of the continued and diffused crime on part of such a vast quantity of persons that never do more than 5 minutes go by without my suffering the mean behaviour and agreed upon denial of the provocation for the purposes of confusing my reaction, instead desultory and also ironic (attachment 12).
I am now tired and probably depressed; I do not have the resources to go abroad, the magistracy is refusing to make investigations denying me the right to due process and to the satisfaction of the wrongs suffered. Incredibly all three of the attorneys contacted to follow the situation have one after the other declined the task and this makes everything seem to me to be an out and out conspiracy (attachments 13-14).
This is the reply of Mediaset to my request for them to supply me with the tapes with the registrations of the programs (attachment 15).
III. Exposition of the violation/violations of the convention lamented by the plaintiff as well as the relative argumentations
From the previous narrative is evinced the violation of the following articles of the European Declaration of Human Rights.
Art. 3 where the inalienable right of every individual is disposed to one’s own physical and psychic integrity, because to systematically commit aggressions against a person for the purpose of provoking him/her in an alienating way for years in the attempt to have him react out of line (as for any other reason) violated the article 3, rather than perfectioning the concept of Psychological Torture.
The academic hypothesis that my state of suffering is real would aggravate the responsibility of Italian Institutions because this, on the same level as any other sickness, commands a particular form of respect and could never legitimate harassment and provocations like those I have suffered beginning in March 2004.
Art. 7, where it is affirmed that every individual has the right to the respect for his/her private and familial life, of his/her own domicile and his/her communications.
From the moment that the Section “Interior Market” of the European Commission, in the person of Maria Grazia Assetta, guaranteed me that it had never used my name, despite having had my permission, the only figures with knowledge of my intention to denounce the Italian State are the Public Prosecutor's, Dr. Porcelli, and the Police Officers at the time in service at the Office of Defence of the Court of Genoa. The information contained in the request justified the conferring with the Public Prosecutor and that supplied by me directly to the police is however vague and generic; this meaning that action against my person necessarily involved the Institutions and is based on interceptions and other violations of the right to privacy, at least in the communications.
Art. 8, where it is affirmed that every individual has the right to the protection of the information regarding him/her and that this information must be handling according to the principle of loyalty…because it is clear that the diffusion of audiovisual information and material relative to my person for the purposes of placing a generality of individuals in the condition of being able to recognize me immediately constitutes a clear crime of the article 8; a greater reason if used to commit the crimes of Abuse by means of television, defamation, ideological forgery and instigation to harassment.
Art. 15 or of the right to work, to professional liberty expressed in the choice of a liberally accepted profession. The injury, the defamation and the discredit caused to me in these last two years have had as an inevitable consequence the impossibility to work which has multiplied the economic hardship by the psychic. As indicated at the beginning the particular Italian coop-corporative social structure denies the right to work to whomever places trust solely in the rules of democracy and of the market without militating in any one of the associations in which social life is organized sponsored by one of its influential members. (enclosure 16; article of Peter Popham)
Art. 41 first comma, in which the right of every individual is sanctioned to be heard before measures are taken against him which bears prejudice to him and the right of every individual to gain access to the file regarding himself in addition to the obligation of the administration to give motivations for its decisions. Second comma, where the right of every individual is affirmed to compensation on part of the community for damages caused by its institutions. Principles for which to demonstrate their violation it is enough to remember that to date no one has said what is being disputed nor by whom. The fact then that the Italian magistracy did not make investigations for the purpose of deferring the parties responsible for the crimes committed against me to judgment is the same reason for this report.
In the event in the investigation and hearing phase of the process it is verified that Italian institutions “latu sensu” have directly taken or backed professional boycotting towards me before the month of march 2004, the responsibility of the Italian state should be proportionally increased.
Art. 21 whereas it is imposed to the undersigning state the obligation not to discriminate between human beings. The lack of respect of Article 15, in the terms of continued and systematic boycott, necessarily implicating discriminatory behaviour against my person.
IV - Exposition relative to the requisites regarding article 35 §1 of the Convention
The reason for which the degrees of interior judgment were not set out is because none were allowed me. As deducible from the dynamics of the facts laid forth in the second section, the Italian magistracy denied me the right to justice by not conducting the necessary investigations in order to send to judgment the instigators of the crimes against my person and rather systematically dismissed my complaints with motivations which would alone be enough to make its good faith doubtful.
In doing so the Italian State left me at the mercy of a situation of diffused and continued crimes from which I cannot defend myself because of the lack of resources and references necessary to immigrate in a constructive manner.
V - Exposition relative the object of the recourse
I ask the European Court for Human Rights, once objective responsibility is assessed, that it condemn the Italian State to the reestablishment of the moral and material damages suffered by my person in the exemplary measure of 10 million Euro; in addition obligating it to purchase a page for three consecutive days on a newspaper with national coverage for each country in the union in which to publish the story in question and the pronouncement of the judgment.
With this money it is my intention to immigrate to one of the very civil countries of the Union (probably Great Britain) and there try to start a new life, despite my age and the signs left by twenty years of being cast out socially and two of psychological torture.
In addition I ask the Court to grant me legal aid because the first consequence of the facts being contested to the Italian State is the condition of economic difficulty which impedes me from sustaining legal expenses of any nature.
VI - Other international petitions invested in the suit
No other petitions have been proposed in addition to the present recourse.
VII - Attached documents
1 - Report to the Command of the Carabinieri because of the blackmail I suffered in order to be able to work
2 - Dismissal of the report “because the fact does not constitute a crime” issued by Judge Terrile
3 - Regional law of Equalization of Datasiel SPA to a public entity supplier of services
4 - Report to the European Commission of the Italian State for infraction of community law
5 - Reply of the European Commission Section Interior Market
6 - Press release which reports the news of the activities of Datasiel SPA on the Romanian market
7 - Certificate of the Region of Liguria listing the sums paid in favour of Datasiel withdrawn from the European fund “Objective 2”
8 - Photocopy of a typical printout with which an association publicises conventions with public entities legally impossible and participation in projects financed by the European Union to which it could not gain access (plus printout of the projects approved by the Region of Liguria in the spheres different from those in which the same association participates)
9 - Report to the Magistracy for defamation, harassment and instigation to commit crimes notified directly to the chancery of the court after six months of psychological torture because the Carabinieri to whom it was presented refused four times to accept it
10 - Petition to dismiss the denunciation on part of the Public Defender Scorza-Azzara due to lack of verifications in the preliminary investigations
11 - Definitive dismissal of the denunciation despite my act of opposition because “The facts do not constitute a crime” issued by the Judge for the Preliminary Investigations Dr. Daloiso
12 - Handwritten statement of a witness (name omitted)
13 - Letter with which the Honourable Alfredo Biondi declines my invitation to provide me with legal assistance before the Ordinary Magistracy
14 - Letter with which Attorney Enrico Grego declines my invitation to take care of the civil aspect of the Compensation of Damages citing to be a civil lawyer
15 - Letter of Mediaset SPA in reply to my question to supply me with the registrations of the television transmissions relative to the previous narrative
16 - Interview given by me to Peter Popham in May 2005, published in the British daily “The Independent” and in the “New Zealand Herald”
VIII - Statement and Signature
Gianni Maselli
Piazza Bruno, 4 - 16010
Isoverde di Campomorone
Italy
Telephone numbers:
+3910790464
+393489194588
gmaselli@infinito.it
gmaselli@libero.it
