To avoid this postulated the linguist, the media must be unarmed as any power, they should be put under popular control and its themes should not be impuestos by advertisers, or the owners or investors. This would be a true democracy. It is no exaggeration to say that the efforts devoted to controlling our lives are a recurring issue in the history of the world, with special emphasis in recent years, major changes in human relations and the world order scenario. In the 20th century, the great mass of citizens is evaluated as ignorant and rude, which gets into everything, his role is that of spectators rather than participants, except during those regular opportunities that we must choose between economic power responsible for private establishments usually known or the oligarchy, reality of our country, and many Latin American countries. It is what has given to call elections.

During the elections, public opinion is considered essentially irrelevant if it conflicts with the requests of the opulent minority possessing the country. A conclusive example, and there are many, it has to do with the international economic order, with the so-called trade agreements. The population, in general, opposes without moderators most of these things, as they clearly highlight the surveys, but these issues do not appear during the elections. They do not appear because the centers of power, the opulent minority, remains attached to the defence of the institutionalization of a particular socio-economic order. So these issues do not appear. What is discussed not worried too much. This is very normal, and takes direction from the admission that the role of the citizen, such as illiterate and consented to it gets into everything, implies that it should be reduced to the spectator. If citizenship, as it happens often, try to organize and engage in policy to participate, to press for their concerns, then a problem arises.

Germany Court

The lawyers Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter informed the European Court of human rights by a recent judgment strengthened the rights of possible biological fathers in dealing with their children. More info: Charles Rangel. Alexander Dobiasch and Rupert Richter lawyers learn about the background of the judgment. Basis of law saying underlying is a case in which a 53 dealing was denied his possible son through the mother and German courts. The mother of the child had maintained a relationship with the plaintiff, but during pregnancy separated themselves from him and returned to her husband. The plaintiff was allowed to see the child, however already had acknowledged paternity at the competent youth welfare office before the child’s birth. As the legal father, the husband of the mother has been set however.

Legal steps were ineffective until then, because the couple rejected a paternity test in the interest of the family and the Federal Constitutional Court showed appropriate applications of the possible father back. According to the view of the Court, only a claim holdings if it at least for a certain time actually would have responsibility for the child. European Convention on human rights allows pain and suffering according to opinion of the Strasbourg Court the competent courts would need to check the background of the case more thoroughly. The fact that a biological paternity has not been proven and no familial binding could be established with the child, was not attributable to the applicant. The potential father has already made clear interest in the mother and the child before the child’s birth, in which he accompanied the mother to various medical examinations and had already acknowledged paternity before the birth. These actions fall according to the ECHR in the scope of family life under article 8 of the ECHR. Opinion of the European Court of human rights would have to be checked, whether the handling of the possible father in the interests of the child have been would be. The failure of the competent courts a violation of the right to respect of privacy exists, which is rooted in the European human rights Convention. Thus, Germany was condemned to pay a pecuniary damage in the amount of $ 5,000.00 to the possible father. For more information on this judgment the lawyers Alexander Dobiasch and Rupert Richter in Bergen you hesitate on Rugen available. Press contact contact: lawyers Alexander Dobiasch & Rupert Richter Marktstrasse 8 18528 Bergen auf Rugen phone: + 49 03838 / 25 71 10 fax: + 49 03838 / 25 71 15 email: Homepage: