Arşiv

📂 2002

2002 — Repeated Obstruction of Medical Assistance, the Use of False Information Against Me, and My Lawyer’s Explicit Warning of Lasting Damage to My Health Related earlier court cases: Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — VG 32 A 594.00 and VG 32 A 487.01. This folder also contains the new application for urgent protection submitted by Harald Lilge on 12 August 2002 under § 123 VwGO. The separate court case number and final decision concerning that application do not appear in this PDF. This folder contains my lawyer’s submissions to the court and state authorities, the state doctor’s written response, hospital and laboratory records, gastroscopy findings, a medication prescription, a medical treatment voucher, and certificates calling for urgent medical assistance. These show how the deprivations that began in 1998–2001 continued in 2002. Information concerning my illnesses and need for treatment was repeatedly submitted to state authorities, and my lawyer explicitly warned of the risk of lasting harm. On 12 August 2002, my lawyer Harald Lilge submitted an application for urgent protection to Verwaltungsgericht Berlin. He requested that Bezirksamt Reinickendorf be ordered to provide medical assistance under § 4 AsylbLG, that the opposing party bear the court costs, and that I be granted Prozesskostenhilfe — legal aid for the costs of the proceedings. My lawyer expressly challenged the grounds used to refuse assistance in the two earlier court cases: doubts about my lack of financial means, the position that there was no obstacle to my return to my country, and the claim that § 1a AsylbLG permitted all assistance to be withheld. He stated that the first two grounds consisted of assumptions and rejected the withholding even of medical assistance. He also wrote that, because new medical certificates existed, it was wrong to reject new applications by referring to the earlier decisions. My lawyer’s strongest warning appears on page 5 of the application: “Even the denial of medical assistance is an utterly cynical violation of human dignity. The applicant’s health is being played with; he has reason to fear lasting damage and a worsening of his illnesses.” The expression “bleibende Schäden” — lasting damage — is one of the central points of this folder. As early as 2002, my lawyer was warning the court and state authorities that withholding medical assistance could lead to a worsening of my illnesses and lasting damage to my health. The same application also states that withdrawing all assistance deprives a person of the possibility of leading a life consistent with human dignity and reduces that person to “a mere object of state action.” The approach used to assess my financial circumstances also prompted my lawyer’s strong objection. He rejected the inference that, because I had not yet starved to death, I must have the means to support myself. He wrote that it was impossible for me to list every person from whom I had sought help with food. My survival through the assistance of others was being used against me as a reason to claim that I did not need assistance. In his letter of 8 May 2002, Lilge submitted the Urban hospital’s record dated 5 May and requested a treatment voucher for further examination and treatment. The letter refers to gastritis, an elevated white blood cell count, and the need for further investigation. That laboratory finding alone is not a separate tumour diagnosis; the documents called for it to be investigated. In the same letter, my lawyer also wrote that he was intervening without being paid. He objected to the apparent preference within the state authority, when doubt arose, for leaving a genuinely ill and needy person untreated rather than providing assistance once too often. This folder contains a particularly serious contradiction between information used against me and the state institution’s own confirmation. My lawyer’s letter of 8 May records that I had been reproached for failing to attend two medical appointments. I had stated that I had received no such notifications. Yet, in her letter of 16 May 2002, Dr Betzhold explicitly confirms that their service had not scheduled any examination appointments for me. I accuse the use against me of my supposed failure to attend examinations that had never been scheduled of constituting slander, the use of false information, and the deliberate distortion of the documentary record. I do not accept this as an accidental error. Such information portrayed me as an uncooperative person responsible for his own situation and became an obstacle to the assistance I was requesting to protect my health. My accusation concerns the creation and use against me of information that contradicted the doctor’s confirmation, rather than the doctor’s letter confirming that no appointment had been scheduled. Who supplied that information, where it was recorded, and which decisions relied upon it are important parts of the question of responsibility. I accuse the failure to investigate this contradiction after it was brought before the court, the failure to hold those responsible accountable, and the failure to protect my health of constituting concealment and complicity. My unequivocal accusation is this: when false information used against me by state authorities and decisions obstructing my access to treatment were not remedied through judicial protection, their consequences continued in my life. The state doctor’s letter dated 16 May also contains recommendations for further examinations: a gastroscopy and a repeat check of the elevated white blood cell count within two to three weeks. The same letter states that the public medical service was neither intended nor equipped to conduct extensive examinations to establish diagnoses. Such examinations required access to a doctor or hospital; that access, however, became caught in obstacles involving treatment vouchers and the coverage of costs. The gastroscopy performed on 31 May 2002 documented objective findings concerning my physical illnesses: erosive pangastritis, grade II reflux oesophagitis, cardia insufficiency, and a pronounced hiatal hernia. The doctor considered high-dose medication absolutely necessary and recommended that its costs be covered. In his letter of 12 June, Lilge demanded that the state authority finally take my illnesses seriously and issue a medical treatment voucher. He objected to my being forced to request separate approval of costs each time, despite certificates having been submitted concerning illnesses affecting different parts of my body. He also pointed out that the repeat examination of my white blood cell count was being delayed. The treatment voucher issued on 19 June was valid only until 30 June. On 5 July, my lawyer requested a voucher for the third and fourth quarters and wrote that treatment should continue with as little interruption as possible. The medical certificate dated 4 July expressly required the continuation of treatment for chronic active inflammation. It specifically emphasised that, despite the presence of a depressive illness, the chronic active reflux oesophagitis and gastritis must not be forgotten. It stated that treatment would also be necessary beyond the following quarter. Nevertheless, as recorded in my lawyer’s application of 12 August, Raatsch stated by telephone on 18 July that no new voucher would be issued. He referred to the earlier court decisions and said that they prohibited the issuing of a voucher. Thus, the earlier refusals were again being used as an obstacle despite new medical documents and continuing illnesses. The state doctor’s certificate of 25 July recorded a febrile infection with suspected lung involvement and called for urgent medical care by an internal medicine specialist. My lawyer’s letter of the same date states that I had attended the Urban hospital because of pain and fever, but that, because I had no treatment voucher, no further treatment had been provided beyond tablets. My lawyer stated that the condition had worsened within a single day and required treatment in Berlin as immediately as possible. I do not accept these events being presented as minor injuries, isolated misunderstandings, or accidental errors. I identify the use of false information against me, the distortion of documented facts, and the obstruction of assistance despite repeated warnings about the danger to my health as parts of my grave allegation of criminal conduct involving state authorities and the failure of judicial protection. My accusation is not limited to damage to my reputation. It concerns illnesses aggravated by the absence of treatment, lasting damage to my health, my independence, and the future of my life. I also do not separate from this history the harm I report to my opportunities to establish a family and continue my life freely. I object to being compelled repeatedly to prove from the beginning the significance of documents that I have collected over twenty-eight years at the cost of my life and health. I demand specific answers in response to the documents submitted: what was done when an official document contradicted information used against me, why was necessary treatment not provided when its necessity was documented, and what measures were taken to protect my health after the warning of lasting damage? My legal references are § 4 and § 1a AsylbLG as applicable at the time; Articles 1(1), 2(2), 19(4), 20(3), and 103(1) of the Basic Law; and § 86(1) and § 123 VwGO. Referring to Bundestag document BT-Drs. 13/11172, Lilge explained that medical assistance for acute illness and pain forms part of indispensable assistance. At the international level, I invoke Articles 2, 3, 8, and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I raise my allegation concerning the failure to protect life, physical and mental integrity, human dignity, access to medical care, and effective legal protection within the framework of these rights. The 2002 folder documents how the events continued: information used against me, official confirmation contradicting it, objective medical findings, demands for continuing treatment, repeated obstacles, and my lawyer’s explicit warning of lasting damage. My unequivocal allegations concerning responsibility, bias, concealment, and complicity are based on this documentary sequence. This text is the folder’s explanatory account of those documents and their consequences for my life.