1. The applicant requests that this application be dealt with in conjunction with application ECHR 18,506/16.
2. On 3 October 2012, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales denied the applicant jurisdiction to the London Employment Tribunal. During those proceedings, the applicant submitted that EU law applied, and that under articles TFEU 18 and TFEU 45 that Court, by denying jurisdiction, would discriminate based on nationality against the applicant. Moreover, the applicant made several submissions both in the grounds for appeal as well as in the skeleton arguments asking that Court, as the Court of last instance, to put forward the question of discrimination under TFEU 18 and TFEU 45 to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for its opinion …show more content…
It is also settled EU law that State liability can arise whenever the national Court fails to fulfill its obligation under TFEU 267(3) . In the summons, the Court of Session was presented with a detailed summary of State liability under Kobler C-224/01 and Traghetti del Mediterraneo C-173/03. Therefore, the Court of Session cannot argue ignorance of these trite laws which make it abundantly clear that State liability can arise when a national Court ignores TFEU 267(3). Again, the Court of Session chose once more to knowingly flaunt EU law clearly stated and put before it and instead rely on British law to deny access to a fair hearing. Of course it only asked for a signature from a person with right to hearing, however, such requirement becomes insurmountable from a financial perspective. The applicant would have to hire a solicitor or equivalent which in all probability has little or no experience with EU law in general and less experience in the particular case law relevant to the summons in question. Therefore any solicitor would not only have to spend the usual time to prepare the summons but also a much greater amount of time learning EU law in general and EU case law in particular. Thus the obstacle not only from a financial point of view but also from a timely point of view because the solicitor would be required to spend several months if not more than an year to be fully ready to face the defender's solicitor with ample experience in EU law. As noted by the London Employment Appeal Tribunal, the applicant, who has a PhD in physics, has been studying and applying the relevant EU law in the British Courts since March 2012. Therefore the applicant has at least four years more experience than any hypothetical solicitor. Thus, the net effects of the intentionally made manifest error are threefold: 1) to put a financial obstacle, 2) to delay the applicant right to a timely hearing and 3) to ensure a lower quality of representation. All these attempt to
2. On 3 October 2012, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales denied the applicant jurisdiction to the London Employment Tribunal. During those proceedings, the applicant submitted that EU law applied, and that under articles TFEU 18 and TFEU 45 that Court, by denying jurisdiction, would discriminate based on nationality against the applicant. Moreover, the applicant made several submissions both in the grounds for appeal as well as in the skeleton arguments asking that Court, as the Court of last instance, to put forward the question of discrimination under TFEU 18 and TFEU 45 to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for its opinion …show more content…
It is also settled EU law that State liability can arise whenever the national Court fails to fulfill its obligation under TFEU 267(3) . In the summons, the Court of Session was presented with a detailed summary of State liability under Kobler C-224/01 and Traghetti del Mediterraneo C-173/03. Therefore, the Court of Session cannot argue ignorance of these trite laws which make it abundantly clear that State liability can arise when a national Court ignores TFEU 267(3). Again, the Court of Session chose once more to knowingly flaunt EU law clearly stated and put before it and instead rely on British law to deny access to a fair hearing. Of course it only asked for a signature from a person with right to hearing, however, such requirement becomes insurmountable from a financial perspective. The applicant would have to hire a solicitor or equivalent which in all probability has little or no experience with EU law in general and less experience in the particular case law relevant to the summons in question. Therefore any solicitor would not only have to spend the usual time to prepare the summons but also a much greater amount of time learning EU law in general and EU case law in particular. Thus the obstacle not only from a financial point of view but also from a timely point of view because the solicitor would be required to spend several months if not more than an year to be fully ready to face the defender's solicitor with ample experience in EU law. As noted by the London Employment Appeal Tribunal, the applicant, who has a PhD in physics, has been studying and applying the relevant EU law in the British Courts since March 2012. Therefore the applicant has at least four years more experience than any hypothetical solicitor. Thus, the net effects of the intentionally made manifest error are threefold: 1) to put a financial obstacle, 2) to delay the applicant right to a timely hearing and 3) to ensure a lower quality of representation. All these attempt to