INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
CORTE PENALE INTERNAZIONALE
Bezuidenhoutseweg99a 2594 AC The Hague Netherlands
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’
POSTI IN ESSERE DA ORGANI DELLA UNIONE EUROPEA TRAMITE LA COLLETTIVAZIONE DELLE PERDITE FINANZIARIE E IL PRELIEVO FORZOSO
del L’ASSOCONSUMATORI (c.f.:97043410584) in persona del Presidente , legale rappresentante p.t., Dott. Vitali Giorgio elettivamente domiciliata in Roma ,via Unione Sovietica 8, presso lo studio dell’Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara (CRCMRZ52L03H501O; 06/32650592; mauriziocerchiara@ordineavvocati.org ; maurizio.cerchiara@libero.it ) del foro di Roma che le rappresenta e difende , giusta delega rilasciata a margine del presente atto,
PREMESSO
Con la Direttiva n. 2014/91/UE, l’Unione Europea ha disciplinato la materia del risanamento degli enti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento e la ha imposta agli stati membri dell’UE
Con tali norme si consente alle banche di attenuare le loro crisi finanziarie tramite un prelievo forzoso sui conti correnti dei cittadini risparmiatori degli stati membri UE
Invero, con tale nuovo regime si e’ passati da un sistema in cui la risoluzione delle crisi e’ imperniata sul ricorso ad apporti esterni forniti dallo Stato (bail-out), ad un nuovo sistema che scarica sugli azionisti creditori correntisti e quindi cittadini le crisi bancarie.( bail-in)
Tale aspetto si e’ gia’ verificato nel 2014 nei confronti dei conti correnti dei cittadini ciprioti ( prelievo del 37,5%) sui depositi oltre i 100000 euro)
Tale provvedimento, che non e’ altro che l’ultimo di tutta una politica della UE rivolta a collettivizzare le perdite del sistema finanziario e bancario, . non e’ soltanto illegittimo, ma si rivela atto costituente crimine contro l’umanita’ sulla base delle seguenti argomentazioni
I – DEFICIT DI RAPPRESENTANZA DELLA UE
L’UE deve sopportare un gravissimo deficit di rappresentanza democratica causato dal fatto che i cittadini degli stati membri non eleggono i Commissari e eleggono i parlamentari attraverso procedure nazionali. Peraltro, l’unico organo ad essere legittimato dall’elezione e’ il Parlamento, che ha un ruolo molto subordinato rispetto agli altri organi e senza potere decisionale.
Anche se le decisioni UE, come quella relativa al prelievo forzoso, emesse su richiesta della BCE, riguardano la vita sociale, lavorativa, economica e quindi individuale di ciascun cittadino UE. Sul piano nazionale la tutela e’ insussistente come anche lo e’ su quello comunitario. Infatti, non si possono direttamente impugnare gli atti comunitari e la richiesta di rinvio pregiudiziale che il cittadino dello stato membro puo’ invocare davanti al giudice del proprio paese, non e’ quasi mai accolta dai giudici nazionali..
E va evidenziato che la BCE, organo della UE di natura privata, stampa moneta e la gestisce in gran parte dandola alle banche, senza che i cittadini Ue possano far nulla.
Cosicche’ i provvedimenti relativi al prelievo forzoso sono giuridicamente illegittimi perche’ non democraticamente supportati.
A maggior ragione il predetto vizio di rappresentanza e’ raddoppiato a sfavore del cittadino italiano perche’ le decisioni finanziarie sono state prese da un organo UE non eletto dagli italiani; peraltro alcun capo di governo ha ricevuto un mandato elettorale relativo alle materie comunitarie.
II – ILLEGITTIMITA’ DELLA DIRETTIVA 2014/59/UE CHE ISTITUISCE IL RISANAMENTO DEGLI ENTI CREDITIZI
La comunita’ europea imponendo la collettivizzazione delle perdite del sistema finanziario ed il prelievo forzoso, hanno disconosciuto il fine istitutivo della Comunita’ che e’ quello di adoperarsi per realizzare “una crescita economica equilibrata su un’economia sociale di mercato che mira alla piena occupazione a al progresso sociale (artt. 2, 1,21 T UE e 120 TF UE ) in un contesto di “rispetto dei principi di una economia di mercato aperta ed in libera concorrenza” Peraltro, ex art. 13 T UE UE tali organi devono assicurare il perseguimento dei predetti principi e la Commissione in particolare ex art. 17 T UE
Ebbene. la collettivizzazione delle perdite finanziarie per il risanamento dei conti bancari a carico dei conti pubblici dei paesi membri indebitati e dei risparmi dei cittadini e’ contraria ai principi fondamentali della Comunita’ UE(CDF), alla Costituzione UE e al Trattato.
L’ordinamento comunitario e quello italiano, ostano a che gli effetti di una crisi finanziaria possano ricadere esclusivamente sull’assetto economico e sociale di un paese membro, per quanto indebitato, sulle sue spese sociali, sui suoi lavoratori, sulle sue imprese, sui suoi cittadini che non hanno causato alcun danno,
L’ordinamento comunitario richiede per primo che siano messi sotto processo i responsabili della crisi ( governativi, bancari od altro) ex art. 20 della CDF,
Anche perche’ la politica dei tagli sociali impedisce qualsivoglia crescita economica se non e’ accompagnata da altre misure.
L’economia della Comunita’ , poi, deve risultare “sociale” e non favorevole esclusivamente agli operatori finanziari speculativi del mercato.
Al contrario l’UE ha imposto, violando le proprie norme costitutive, di far pagare ai cittadini degli stati in difficolta’ il debito e di colmare i debiti delle banche tramite imposte sempre a carico dei cittadini.
III - VIOLAZIONE DEI PRINCIPI FONDAMENTALI DEL DIRITTO COMUNITARIO E DEI TRATTATI IN RIFERIMENTO ALLA DIMENSIONE NON ECONOMICA DEL CITTADINO UE
La collettivizzazione delle perdite finanziarie e il risanamento delle banche tramite bail-in ed imposte a carico dei cittadini degli Stati membri adottata dai predetti organi UE e’ contraria ai principi fondamentali della Comunita’ UE alla Costituzione UE e al Trattato anche sotto altro profilo.
Infatti, il diritto comunitario osta che il cittadino membro sia considerato come semplice consumatore in quanto deve essere tutelato nella sua dimensione personale anche rispetto alla speculazione finanziaria.
La Corte di Giustizia UE ha specificato come, in virtù dell'introduzione della cittadinanza comunitaria, i cittadini dell'Unione non possono non ottenere un trattamento giuridico identico, indipendentemente dalla loro nazionalità, nei settori coperti dal diritto comunitario, all'interno del quale vige il divieto di qualsiasi discriminazione fondata sulla cittadinanza (Sent. 20.9. 2001, causa C-184/99, Grzelczyk c. Centre p. in Racc. p. I-6193(56) ; sent.15.3.2005, causa C-209/03, Dany Bidar c. London Borough, in Racc. p. I-1219 )
Orbene se la cittadinanza europea e’ status di diritto fondamentale dell’UE , il prelievo forzoso viola il Trattato UE, La Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’EU(CDF) la Convenzione dei diritti dell’Uomo, la Costituzione Ue
Cio’ in quanto l’UE dovrebbe tutelare i propri cittadini anche nella loro dimensione personale e nell’ambito delle formazioni sociali e lavorative in cui si muovono; invece li considera ancora come semplici operatori economici che per ciò solo godono della libertà di circolazione.( Corte Giustizia sent. 19.10.2004, causa C-200/02, Zhu e Chen c. Secretary of State in Racc. p. I-9925 ; causa C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano, sentenza dell'8 marzo 2011).
IV – VIOLAZIONE DEI PRINCIPI FONDAMENTALI DEL DIRITTO COMUNITARIO E DEI TRATTATI IN RIFERIMENTO ALLA NORMATIVA FINANZIARIA
Tramite la collettivizzazione delle perdite finanziarie ed il prelievo forzoso, la BCE ha violato l’art. l’art. 18 dello Statuto in quanto esso stabilisce l’erogazione di prestiti agli istituti creditizi possa avvenire solo “sulla base di adeguate garanzie” Garanzie che non c’erano. Infatti, come riporta la ricerca recente della Banca dei regolamenti internazionali(Bri) 40 banche colpite dalla prima ondata della crisi sono state mantenute grazie ad un immissione di 350 miliardi da parte dell’erario.
Ebbene, le successive verifiche hanno mostrato che le banche salvate hanno accentuato il loro grado di pericolosita’ (Sole24ore , dicembre 2012); l’ufficio di studi di Mediobanca nel luglio 2015 ha appurato che le crisi bancarie sono costate agli Stati UE 285 miliardi. Da dati attuali risulta che 1600 miliardi di euro di denaro pubblico sono stati usati per salvataggi bancari
Attualmente , nel febbraio 2016, le ulteriori crisi bancarie stanno provocando crolli in borsa; inoltre il ricorso al bail-in , paradossalmente, produce rischi sistemici anche al sistema finanziario (Sole24ore 12.2.16) perche’ gli investitori compiscono le banche che si sono di piu’ affidate all’emissione di obbligazioni.
Il che dimostra che la politica di far pagare ai cittadini, tramite tasse, tagli ai salari, alla spesa pubblica, alla cultura, alla ricerca, all’istruzione, gli effetti negativi delle operazioni finanziarie speculative non solo non e’ conveniente per i cittadini ed oltre che un atto illegittimo sul piano umano produce solo disastro economico.
Il diritto comunitario osta a che l’attivita’ finanziaria proprio perche’ rivolta ad incidere su questioni economiche che riguardano le nazioni, sia considerata a carattere esclusivamente privato; infatti, ha anche rilevante natura pubblica poiche’ incide sugli assetti economici, sociali e politici degli Stati membri.
V - FONDAMENTO DEL CRIMINE DENUNCIATO
Gli organi UE,, dal reg. 1466/ 1997 e con l’abrogazione degli artt. 102,103, 104c del TUE, avevano gia’ notevolmente ridotto i paesi membri degli unici poteri politici ad essi attribuiti in funzione della condizione economica della comunita’.
Successivamente, gli organi della UE hanno gestito la crisi con atti criminali rispetto ai cittadini degli stati membri in violazione delle norme istituzionali comunitarie e costituzionali di tutti i paesi membri.
Nonostante regola fondamentale di tutte le nazioni occidentali sia la gestione democratica di un paese, tramite gli atti degli attuali organi UE si sono deresponsabilizzati gli stati membri rispetto ai propri cittadini ed oggi a governare gli Stati vi e’ un ristretto gruppo oligarchico che non ha fondamento democratico.
Infatti, nonostante regola fondamentale del diritto degli stati membri sia quella di sanzionare solo il responsabile di una violazione, gli attuali organi UE fanno pagare ai cittadini degli stati membri gli effetti delle operazioni finanziarie e bancarie compiute da soggetti che restano in gran parte impuniti e possono continuare tranquillamente a svolgere i loro atti tanto sano coscienti che nel caso in cui l’operazione non avesse esito positivo, altri pagheranno i loro errori.
Nonostante regola fondamentale dell’economia sia quella che senza investimento non si puo’ produrre ricchezza, gli attuali organi UE – contrastando le opinioni dei maggiori economisti mondiali, - impediscono la ripresa economica imponendo solo misure di rigidita’ di bilancio senza alcun investimento.; in tal maniera dimostrano di perseguire una politica anche al di fuori delle elementari regole economiche
Gli organi UE penalizzano le imprese in quanto gestiscono l’economia mondiale con provvedimenti errati sul piano economico e comunque senza tutela tramite dazi o altre decisioni a favore delle imprese europee. Tutti i governi del mondo difendono gli interessi dei loro cittadini e delle loro imprese, solo la UE non difende gli interessi dei cittadini e delle imprese dei propri stati membri (tanto che gli imprenditori il 15.2.16 hanno manifestato per poter essere difesi( contro il riconoscimento alla Cina dello status di economia di mercato nonostante l’industria cinese sia notoriamente e massicciamente aiutata dallo Stato)
La strage compiuta negli ultimi 10 anni di questi atti criminosi e’ davanti agli occhi di tutti: l’elevatissimo numero dei giovani disoccupati, la distruzione delle tutele dinanzi al giudice del lavoro, l’elevazione delle spese che il cittadino deve erogare per adire la giustizia in forza del quali soltanto i ricchi possono accedervi, la formazione di lavoratori pensionati esodati dalla pensione,, un numero senza fine di imprese fallite,, la distruzione di istituti di istruzione e culturali, musei, ospedali, istituti di ricerca, il deperimento del patrimonio storico ed artistico, la disfunzione nei servizi pubblici, e piu’ in generale delle amministrazioni pubbliche.
VI - GLI ATTI CRIMINOSI SI SAREBBERO POTUTI EVITARE FACILMENTE
Gli organi della UE avrebbero potuto gestire la crisi senza ricorrere alla collettivizzazione delle perdite finanziarie ed al prelievo forzoso
Sarebbe stato sufficiente se veramente avessero voluto perseguire il loro scopo istituzionale,: istituire un sistema democratico; creare un organo penale comunitario che si occupasse di chi ha gestito male le operazioni finanziarie e bancarie; applicare e non violare le norme comunitarie vigenti e quelle costituzionali degli stati membri che tutelano il cittadino; rispettare gli ordinari principi economici senza favorire istituzioni finanziarie e speculative e multinazionali,,
I predetti organi avrebbe ancor piu’ semplicemente potuto istituire una comunita’ a due velocita’, con differenze di regime tra nazioni con opposte situazioni economiche; creare un nuovo sistema bancario, con possibilita’ della BCE di stampare denaro anche tramite il ritorno al regime pubblico delle banche centrali dei paesi UE; avrebbero dovuto imporre alle banche il finanziamento di famiglie e imprese, mentre e’ opinione autorevole che il quantitative easing favorisca solo i ricchi(Sole24 ore 28.9.15)
Ma soprattutto avrebbero dovuto imporre in UE una legge sul modello della Glass-Steagall che stabilisce la distinzione tra banche di affari e banche di risparmio. Tale legge, abolita successivamente aveva salvato l’America dalla bancarotta permanente e contiene un principio molto semplice: le banche non possono utilizzare i soldi dei correntisti per compiere operazioni finanziarie.
I predetti organi avrebbero quantomeno dovuto imporre il principio dello sganciamento degli investimenti produttivi dai bilanci per propiziare la ripresa mentre l’odierna rigorosita’ di bilancio distrugge solo l’economia reale senza consentire alcuna risalita economica. Inoltre, essi avrebbero dovuto stabilire che le regolazioni finanziarie fossero gestite da organismi europei , mentre quegli attuali continuano a penalizzare l’economia reale in favore delle grandi imprese multinazionali che operano su scala globale; tali organismi hanno consentito, senza reagire, in quanto non indipendenti, scandali finanziari di rilevante portata economica(tra cui la manipolazione dei tassi d’interesse Libor ed Euribor) Invero, il comportamento degli organi UE sta provocando la lenta formazione di una societa’ in cui solo pochi, i rappresentanti di una elite dirigenziale, finanziaria e bancaria possono sempre di piu’ arricchirsi a discapito di tutti i cittadini degli stati membri che sono sempre piu’ impoveriti a causa di imposte e prelievi forzosi
Alcuna prospettiva di sviluppo e di crescita economica potra’ essere assicurato negli Stati membri, se prima non verra’ stabilito, anche normativamente, il primato dell’economia reale rispetto a quella virtuale della speculazione finanziaria.
Obiettivo della comunita’ non e’ quello di realizzare la liberta’ di mercato in favore di chi vi esercita attivita’ finanziaria speculativa ma quello di conseguire lo sviluppo economico dei cittadini europei tramite il mercato. Tale mercato compreso quello finanziario deve pero’ essere regolato nel senso di non produrre effetti sfavorevoli all’economia reale, cioe’ quella fondata sul lavoro e sull’impresa. Tutto quanto che provoca danno all’economia reale andrebbe vietato.
VII - IL PARLAMENTO UE HA AMMESSO CHE GLI ORGANI UE SI SONO COMPORTATI NEL GESTIRE LA CRISI COME MACELLAI SOCIALI.
Il Parlamento dell’UE con risoluzione del 13.3.14 sull’indagine della Commissione Affari economici sul funzionamento della troika (Commissione, BCE, Ministri delle finanze dell’eurozona) rilevava durante la crisi “ una mancanza di controllo adeguato e di responsabilita’ democratica”
Secondo tale risoluzione la politica della troika ha causato “aumento disoccupazione, fallimento di piccole imprese e aumento dei tassi di poverta’. Il Parlamento ha richiesto una svolta nelle procedure relative agli organi istitutivi per garantire la responsabilita’ democratica e la partecipazione nazionale.
Alla troika il Parlamento ha richiesto un “riesame il prima possibile delle misure messe in atto anche perche’ l’UE dovrebbe sostenere , con risorse finanziarie sufficienti, il ripristino delle norme di protezione sociale. “
In definitiva, chi si comporta da macellaio sociale, commette un crimine contro l’umanita’.
P.Q.M.
Voglia, l’Ecc. Procuratore della International Criminal Court, in forza dello Statuto dell’’ICC,ARTT. 1-21, rilevare la fondatezza delle accuse sopra evidenziate; in difetto ,gli organi dell’UE continuerebbero a svolgere la loro opera ai danni dei cittadini degli stati membri dell’UE e sul piano finanziario arriverebbero, con il tempo,a impadronirsi dei loro beni patrimoniali o a depauperare tutte le loro sostanze.
Inoltre Voglia l’Ecc.mo Procuratore, individuare le persone fisiche organi dell’UE che hanno posto in essere i comportamenti e gli atti sopra denunciati al fine di metterli sotto processo
Paris, 18.2.2016 Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
----------------------------------------------
INGLESE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Aia ( Pays-bas) VOORBURG
(The Arc)
CITATION FOR CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY PERPETRATED BY AGENCIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THROUGH
COLLECTIVE FINANCIAL LOSSED AND FORCED APPROPRIATION (or COMPULSORY LEVY)
of the ASSOCONSUMATORI (CONSUMER
ASSOCIATION) (c.f.: 97043410584) represented by the President, legal
representative, Dr. Giorgio Vitali domiciled in Rome, via Unione Sovietica n.
8, in care of the office of Maurizio Cerchiara, (CRCMRZ52L03H501O;06/32650592;mauriziocerchiara@ordineavvocati.org;
maurizio.cerchiara@libero.it) of the Roman forum who represents and defends
them by rightful power of attorney here with this document.
PREMISE
With
Directive n. 2014/91/EU, the European Union has regulated the matter or the
reorganization of credit institutions and investment firms and imposed such
measures to the member states of the EU.
With such
rules they allow banks to alleviate their financial crisis by way of a
compulsory levy on the accounts of depositors and citizens of the member state
of the EU.
Indeed, this
new system implements a change that goes from one in which the resolution of
the crisis is determined by an external infusion provided by the State
(bail-out), to a new one that unloads the banking crises on shareholders,
creditors, depositors and therefore, the citizens. (bail-in).
This is what
already occurred in 2014 to Cypriot citizens bank accounts (withdrawal of
37.5%) on deposits over 100000 euro).
This measure,
which is only the latest in all the of the EU policies to collectivize losses
in the financial and banking system, not only it is illegitimate, but it is an
act that constitutes a crime against humanity on the basis of the following
points:
I - LACK OF EU
REPRESENTATION
The EU has to bear a very serious lack of democratic representation caused by the fact that the citizens of the member states do not elect the Commissioners and elected parliamentarians through national procedures. Moreover, the only organ to be legitimized by the election is Parliament, which has a very subordinate role compared to other organs and no decision-making power.
The EU has to bear a very serious lack of democratic representation caused by the fact that the citizens of the member states do not elect the Commissioners and elected parliamentarians through national procedures. Moreover, the only organ to be legitimized by the election is Parliament, which has a very subordinate role compared to other organs and no decision-making power.
Although the
EU decisions, such as those relating to the compulsory levy, issued by request
of the ECB, concern the social, occupational, economic life of each individual
EU citizen, domestically the protection is non-existent just as it is at the
Union level. In fact, one cannot directly challenge the Union acts and the
request for a preliminary ruling that citizens of the member state may plead to
the judge for their own country; it’s almost never accepted by the national
courts.
It should be
noted that the ECB, a private institution of the EU, prints money and mainly
gives it to the banks, with EU citizens being unable to do anything about it.
Therefore, the measures relating to compulsory levy are legally illegitimate because they are not democratically supported.
Even more so, the above lack of representation has doubled to the detriment of the Italian citizens because the financial decisions have been taken by an EU body not elected by the Italians; additionally, no head of government received an electoral mandate on Union matters.
Therefore, the measures relating to compulsory levy are legally illegitimate because they are not democratically supported.
Even more so, the above lack of representation has doubled to the detriment of the Italian citizens because the financial decisions have been taken by an EU body not elected by the Italians; additionally, no head of government received an electoral mandate on Union matters.
II -
UNLAWFULNESS OF DIRECTIVE 2014/59 / EU ESTABLISHING THE RESTORATION OF CREDIT
INSTITUTIONS
The European Union by forcing the collectivization of losses in the financial system and the compulsory levy, have disregarded the constituting order for the Union which is to strive to achieve "a balanced economic growth of a social market economy, aiming at full employment and to social progress (arts. 2, 1.21 T EU and 120 TFEU) in a context of "respect for the principles of an open market economy and free competition" Moreover, pursuant to art. 13 T EU, in the EU, such bodies must ensure the pursuit of such principles and the Commission in particular art. 17 T EU must do as such.
The European Union by forcing the collectivization of losses in the financial system and the compulsory levy, have disregarded the constituting order for the Union which is to strive to achieve "a balanced economic growth of a social market economy, aiming at full employment and to social progress (arts. 2, 1.21 T EU and 120 TFEU) in a context of "respect for the principles of an open market economy and free competition" Moreover, pursuant to art. 13 T EU, in the EU, such bodies must ensure the pursuit of such principles and the Commission in particular art. 17 T EU must do as such.
The collectivization of financial losses for the
rehabilitation of bank accounts of the public finances of indebted member
countries at the expense of the savings of citizens is contrary to the founding
principles of the EU (CDF), the EU Constitution and the Treaty.
The Union system and the Italian one, preclude the effects of a financial crisis to fall only on the back of the economic and social condition of a member country, however its debt may be, on its social costs, its workers, its companies and on its citizens who have not caused any damage.
The Union system and the Italian one, preclude the effects of a financial crisis to fall only on the back of the economic and social condition of a member country, however its debt may be, on its social costs, its workers, its companies and on its citizens who have not caused any damage.
The European
Union legal order requires, first of all, that those responsible for the crisis
be put on trial (government, bank or other) art. 20 of the CDF,
Also because the policies requiring social cuts prevent any economic growth if they are not accompanied by other measures.
The economy of the Union, then, must be "social" and not conducive only to speculative financial market players.
On the contrary, in violation of its own constitutional norms, the EU has imposed on the citizens of the states in difficulty to pay the public debt and to make up the banks’ debts through more fees charged on the citizens.
Also because the policies requiring social cuts prevent any economic growth if they are not accompanied by other measures.
The economy of the Union, then, must be "social" and not conducive only to speculative financial market players.
On the contrary, in violation of its own constitutional norms, the EU has imposed on the citizens of the states in difficulty to pay the public debt and to make up the banks’ debts through more fees charged on the citizens.
III - VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW AND OF THE TREATIES WITH RESPECT TO NON-ECONOMIC
DIMENSION OF THE EU CITIZEN
The collectivization of financial losses and the recapitalization of banks through bail-in and charged to the citizens of EU Member States adopted by the aforementioned organs, are contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU Community to the EU Constitution and the Treaty in other respects as well.
In fact, the European Community law precludes the citizen member to be considered as a simple consumer since he is to be protected in its personal dimension also with respect to financial speculation.
The collectivization of financial losses and the recapitalization of banks through bail-in and charged to the citizens of EU Member States adopted by the aforementioned organs, are contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU Community to the EU Constitution and the Treaty in other respects as well.
In fact, the European Community law precludes the citizen member to be considered as a simple consumer since he is to be protected in its personal dimension also with respect to financial speculation.
The EU Court
of Justice has specified how, by virtue of the introduction of the Community
citizenship, citizens of the Union cannot not obtain an identical legal
treatment in the fields covered by Community law, within which any
discrimination based on nationality is forbidden, irrespective of their
nationality, (Sent. 20.9. 2001, Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v., Grzelczyk c.
Center p. in ECR p. The-6193(56) ; sent.15.3.2005, Case C-209/03, Dany Bidar c.
London Borough, in ECR p. The-1219)
Therefore, if
the European citizenship is a fundamental status of the rights of the EU, the
forced levy is in breach of the EU
Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CDF) the Human Rights
Agreement, the EU Constitution
That is due to the fact that the EU should protect their citizens
even in their personal dimension and in the context of the social and working
groups whithin which they move; instead they are considered as simple economic
operators and as such enjoying only freedom of movement.( Court Justice sent.
19.10.2004, Case C-200/02, Zhu and Chen c. The Secretary of State in ECR p.
I-9925; Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano, judgment of 8 March 2011).
IV - VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EU
COMMUNITY LAW AND OF THE TREATIES IN REFERENCE TO FINANCIAL LEGISLATION
Through the collectivisation of financial losses and the forced
levy on depositors, the ECB has
infringed Article art. 18 of the statute in so far as it establishes that
the provision of loans to credit institutions can take place only “on the basis
of adequate guarantees"; guarantees that were not there. In fact, as
stated in the recent research by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
40 banks affected by the first wave of the crisis were kept afloat thanks to an
infusion of 350 billion by the Treasury.
Now then, subsequent verifications have shown that the
saved banks have increased their degree of jeopardy (Sole24ORE , December
2012); the research office of Mediobanca in July 2015 has established that the
banking crises have carried a cost of 285 billion for the members states of the
EU. Current data shows that 1600 billion of public money was used for bank
rescues.
Currently, in
February 2016, the additional banking crises are causing collapses in the stock
exchange; moreover recourse to bail-in , paradoxically, produces systemic risks
even for the financial system (Sole24ore 12.2.16) because investors hit those
banks that relied the most on the issuance of bonds.
This goes to
show that the policy of making the citizens pay through taxes, wage cuts, cuts
in public expenditure, in culture, in research, in education, the adverse
effects of speculative financial operations, not only does not benefit the citizens
but is, furthermore an unlawful act on the human level and that it produces
only economic disaster.
For a start it would suffice to enact a law on the
model of the Glass-Steagall which
establishes a separation between investment banks and savings banks. But
banks must fail; only those that made financial mistakes or those who violated
the law must pay, not the entire society as the current EU agencies claim.
Community law precludes that the financial activities,
precisely because they are meant to have an effect on economic issues of the
nations, be considered to be purely private; in fact, it has also a relevant
public nature because it effects economic, social and political conditions of
the member States.
V - BASIS OF REPORTED CRIME
The EU organs, from reg. 1466/1997 and the repeal of Articles. 102,103, 104c of the TEU, already had significantly reduced the number of the only political powers allocated to member countries according to the economic condition of the community.
Subsequently, the EU authorities have handled the crisis in a criminal manner towards nationals of member states and in breach of the EU constitutional and institutional policies of all member countries.
The EU organs, from reg. 1466/1997 and the repeal of Articles. 102,103, 104c of the TEU, already had significantly reduced the number of the only political powers allocated to member countries according to the economic condition of the community.
Subsequently, the EU authorities have handled the crisis in a criminal manner towards nationals of member states and in breach of the EU constitutional and institutional policies of all member countries.
Despite the fact that a democratic management of a
country is the fundamental rule of all the Western nations, the measures of the
current EU bodies have rendered the member states no longer accountable to
their citizens; and today these member states are governed by a small
oligarchic group that has no democratic foundation.
In fact, despite the fact that the fundamental rule of law of the member states is that of sanctioning only the ones responsible of a violation, the current EU organs unload on the nationals of member states the consequences of the financial and banking transactions carried out by persons who remain largely unpunished and who can, thus, safely continue to carry out their dealing well aware that in case the transaction be not successful, others will pay for their mistakes.
In fact, despite the fact that the fundamental rule of law of the member states is that of sanctioning only the ones responsible of a violation, the current EU organs unload on the nationals of member states the consequences of the financial and banking transactions carried out by persons who remain largely unpunished and who can, thus, safely continue to carry out their dealing well aware that in case the transaction be not successful, others will pay for their mistakes.
Despite member states’ constitutional provisions that
guarantee private property and the protection of savings, the EU bodies, in
fact, ignore them completely and pursue policies that are completely outside
the legal norms by collectivization and the aforementioned measures of
appropriation.
In spite of the fundamental rule of economics that one cannot produce wealth without investments, the existing EU bodies – against the opinions of most economists world-wide, prevent the economic recovery by imposing only rigid budgetary measures without any investment; showing, thus, that they are also enacting policies outside the basic rules of economics.
In spite of the fundamental rule of economics that one cannot produce wealth without investments, the existing EU bodies – against the opinions of most economists world-wide, prevent the economic recovery by imposing only rigid budgetary measures without any investment; showing, thus, that they are also enacting policies outside the basic rules of economics.
The EU organs
penalize companies by managing the world economy through wrong measures in
economic terms and without the protection of tariffs or other decisions in
favor of European businesses. All the
world's governments are protecting the interests of their citizens and their
businesses, only the EU does not protect the interests of citizens and
businesses of its member states (so much so that business owners, on 15/02/16,
have staged protests demanding to be protectd against granting China the status
of market economy despite the fact that
Chinese industry is notoriously and massively subsidized by the State).
The massacre carried out in the last 10
years of these criminal acts is before everybody’s eyes: the high number of
unemployed young people, the destruction of protection before the labor courts,
the cost increase that the citizens have to bear to pursue justice and because
of which only the rich can access, the emergence of retired workers excluded
from pensions, an endless numbers of bankrupt companies, the destruction of
educational and cultural institutions, museums, hospitals, research
institutions; the deterioration of the historical and artistic heritage, the
malfunction of public services, and more in generical in public administration.
VI - CRIMINAL ACTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EASILY AVOIDED
The EU bodies could handle the crisis without resorting to the collectivization of financial losses and forced appropriation. If they had really wanted to pursue their institutional purpose, it would have been sufficient to establish a democratic system, to create a EU criminal agency to take care of those who mismanaged their financial and banking operations; to apply and not violate any current applicable EU rules and the constitutional ones of the participating member states; to respect the ordinary economic principles without favoring financial and speculative institutions and multinationals.
The EU bodies could handle the crisis without resorting to the collectivization of financial losses and forced appropriation. If they had really wanted to pursue their institutional purpose, it would have been sufficient to establish a democratic system, to create a EU criminal agency to take care of those who mismanaged their financial and banking operations; to apply and not violate any current applicable EU rules and the constitutional ones of the participating member states; to respect the ordinary economic principles without favoring financial and speculative institutions and multinationals.
Even better, these bodies could have just
set up a two-speed Union, with different regime between countries with opposing
economic situations; to create a new banking system, whereby the ECB would be
able to print money by returning to the public system of central banks of the
EU countries; they should have required banks to finance households and
businesses, whereby, according to authoritative opinions, quantitative easing
favors only the rich (Sole24 hours 28/09/15).
But, above all, in the EU, they should
have imposed a law, on the Glass-Steagall model which makes the distinction between investment banks
and savings banks. That law, later abolished, saved America from permanent
bankruptcy and contains a very simple principle: banks cannot use money of
account holders to make financial transactions.
These aforementioned bodies should have, at least, imposed the principle of decoupling productive investments from the financial statements to promote the recovery while today's strict budget only destroys the real economy without allowing any economic improvement. Furthermore, they should have required that financial adjustments were to be managed by European agencies, instead at present they continue to penalize the real economy in favor of large multinational companies operating on a global scale; these agencies, by not reacting, since they are not independent, have allowed financial scandals of significant economic scope (including the manipulation of the Libor and Euribor interest rates).
These aforementioned bodies should have, at least, imposed the principle of decoupling productive investments from the financial statements to promote the recovery while today's strict budget only destroys the real economy without allowing any economic improvement. Furthermore, they should have required that financial adjustments were to be managed by European agencies, instead at present they continue to penalize the real economy in favor of large multinational companies operating on a global scale; these agencies, by not reacting, since they are not independent, have allowed financial scandals of significant economic scope (including the manipulation of the Libor and Euribor interest rates).
Indeed, the behavior of EU bodies is
causing the slow development of a society in which only a few, the
representatives of a managerial, financial and banking elite are getting richer
and richer at the expense of all citizens of member states that are
increasingly impoverished because of taxes and forced appropriations.
No prospect of development and economic
growth can be sure to take place until it will be required, by law as well,
that, within the member states, the real economy take priority over the virtual
one of financial speculation.
The objective of the EU community is not to achieve a free market in favor of those who practice speculative financial activities, but it’s that of achieving the economic development of European citizens through the market. Such market, including the financial one, needs, however, to be regulated in such a way as not produce adverse effects on the real economy, the one founded on and labor and on enterprises. Anything that causes damage to the real economy should be banned.
The objective of the EU community is not to achieve a free market in favor of those who practice speculative financial activities, but it’s that of achieving the economic development of European citizens through the market. Such market, including the financial one, needs, however, to be regulated in such a way as not produce adverse effects on the real economy, the one founded on and labor and on enterprises. Anything that causes damage to the real economy should be banned.
VII - THE EU PARLIAMENT HAS ADMITTED THAT THE EU BODIES,
IN MANAGING THE CRISIS, HAVE BEHAVED LIKE SOCIAL BUTCHERS.
During the crisis, with resolution of 13/03/14 on the survey of the Economic Affairs Commission on the functioning of the troika (Commission, ECB, eurozone finance ministers), the EU Parliament, noted "a lack of proper control and of democratic responsibility “.
According to this resolution the Troika policy has caused "increased unemployment, bankruptcy of small businesses and increase in poverty rates”. The Parliament called for a change in procedures relating the governing bodies to ensure democratic responsibility and national participation.
The Parliament made a request to the Troika for a "re-examination, as soon as possible, of the measures put in place also because the EU should support the restoration of social protection standards with sufficient financial resources. “
Moreover, a few months ago, former Commissioner Bolkestein said that the monetary union has failed because a political Europe should have been created before hand.
During the crisis, with resolution of 13/03/14 on the survey of the Economic Affairs Commission on the functioning of the troika (Commission, ECB, eurozone finance ministers), the EU Parliament, noted "a lack of proper control and of democratic responsibility “.
According to this resolution the Troika policy has caused "increased unemployment, bankruptcy of small businesses and increase in poverty rates”. The Parliament called for a change in procedures relating the governing bodies to ensure democratic responsibility and national participation.
The Parliament made a request to the Troika for a "re-examination, as soon as possible, of the measures put in place also because the EU should support the restoration of social protection standards with sufficient financial resources. “
Moreover, a few months ago, former Commissioner Bolkestein said that the monetary union has failed because a political Europe should have been created before hand.
Ultimately, those who behave like social
butchers, commit a crime against humanity .
P.Q.M.
We request that the Hon. Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, pursuant to the Statute of the ICC, ARTS. 1-21, acknowledge the allegations outlined above; failing that, the EU institutions would continue to carry out their work to the detriment of the citizens of EU member states and on a financial level, in time, these would come to seize their assets or to deplete all their substance.
We also request that the Hon. Prosecutor, identify the individuals of the EU bodies that have implemented the behaviors and the actions reported above in order to put them on trial.
P.Q.M.
We request that the Hon. Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, pursuant to the Statute of the ICC, ARTS. 1-21, acknowledge the allegations outlined above; failing that, the EU institutions would continue to carry out their work to the detriment of the citizens of EU member states and on a financial level, in time, these would come to seize their assets or to deplete all their substance.
We also request that the Hon. Prosecutor, identify the individuals of the EU bodies that have implemented the behaviors and the actions reported above in order to put them on trial.
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara
CITAZIONE PER CRIMINI CONTRO L’UMANITA’ Avv. Maurizio Cerchiara