Arşiv

📂 2005-2008

2005–2008 — Failure to Provide the Support I Trusted, a Legal Struggle Conducted Alone While Seriously Ill, and a Guardianship Application That Remained Unsuccessful in the Courts Main cases: Amtsgericht Tiergarten - 50 XVII 6504; Landgericht Berlin - 87 T 25/08; Kammergericht Berlin - 1 W 187/08; Bundesgerichtshof - XII ZB 131/08; correspondence with the Bundesverfassungsgericht - AR 6660/08. This folder contains medical and social assessments showing my need for social support and assistance from a legal guardian, letters from lawyers, my personal applications, and court documents from 2007–2008. The central issue is the failure to provide the assistance I needed while facing serious illnesses, housing problems, and numerous legal proceedings. To provide a fuller understanding of the events, alongside the documents I also preserve here my direct testimony concerning people who helped me and information conveyed to me. I want these events, which had not previously been separately recorded in writing, to reach those reading the archive now and in the future. Assistance from Frau Inna Ziporius and the Support That Was Not Funded in 2005 The assistance I sought was based on specific needs: finding accommodation, moving, furnishing the apartment, corresponding with authorities, defending my social rights, managing debts, and arranging medical appointments. These needs are identified in Frau Inna Ziporius’s social assessment dated 12 January 2005. It states the necessity of my leaving the damp and mouldy accommodation and recommends an initial six months of Betreutes Einzelwohnen - BEW support under SGB XII §§ 67–68. Ziporius helped me even though she was not my officially appointed legal guardian. Having witnessed her honest conduct and her efforts to defend people’s rights, I specifically wanted her continuing support. My aim in this struggle was to obtain assistance from someone I trusted. Lawyer Harald Lilge’s letter dated 1 August 2005, reference L 076/05, states that the Bezirksamt did not cover the costs of the BEW support that Ziporius was intended to provide. The lawyer writes that he did not consider challenging the refusal worthwhile and that, as a person receiving assistance under the AsylbLG, I could not access those services under SGB XII. This date is the date of the lawyer’s letter. Thus, although the documents identified my need for assistance, funding for that assistance was not provided. My accusation is that I was deprived of continuing assistance from Ziporius, who honestly defended my rights. I do not forget the assistance she provided to me without funding. My Personal Testimony Concerning the Closure of Advisory Services That Helped Me The service I came into contact with and received assistance from in 2003 was the only Turkish-speaking advisory service supporting people with AIDS. At that time, I had not been diagnosed with AIDS; my contact with the service had begun through employees of that organisation whom I met on the streets while I was homeless. Because I could communicate with them in Turkish, I stayed in contact and received assistance from them. After they explained my situation to their director, the German woman professor who headed the Turkish-speaking AIDS support service, that director, who was a professor of psychiatry, took an interest in me and invited to a meeting the psychology professor who had previously spoken to me about cutting out my tongue. At one of the meetings, that person stated that he had to receive payment either from the state budget or from me. The woman professor wanted to establish what he had done to me. After the second or third meeting, the woman firmly demanded of him that either my documents be put in order and my residence permit be granted, or she would intervene herself. She told the other party that they would see the consequences. Within a week to ten days, a letter arrived from the Senate stating that the organisation providing that sole Turkish-speaking AIDS service would be closed because there was no money in the state budget. The employees working there informed me of this event. I was also told that the woman professor had been told to her face, “You stuck your nose into matters that did not concern you.” I record this event as my testimony concerning the withdrawal of funding from a service that had intervened to help me and the prevention of that assistance. Years later, I saw that same woman professor working in the psychological department for foreign nationals on Trum Straße. In other words, she was then working as an employed doctor rather than in her own organisation. My Meetings with Cemaleddin Çətin and the Words He Said to Me At the end of 2003, the TD 1 television channel directed me to Cemaleddin Çətin and told me that, if anyone could handle a case of this seriousness, he alone could. That person was known as someone who fought for people’s rights and spoke on television about rights, the law, and the importance of demanding one’s rights. He had an organisation providing family advisory services. When he examined my documents, he asked me, “Son, which organisation do you work with?” I replied, “What organisation? I am one person on my own; I do not work with any organisation.” Pointing to the documents and evidence I had collected and the sequence in which they had been prepared, he said that this was not the work of one person but the work of an organisation. After reading my Strasbourg letter dated 1 September 2003, he asked, “Have you sent this?” I said that I had not yet sent it. He instructed me to send the letter urgently by post with a return receipt confirming delivery. He explained that I had to pay for this and that a receipt confirming the signature of those receiving the letter in Strasbourg would be returned to me. Then he specifically said, “Bring me the receipt.” I sent the letter in the manner he had explained and took the receipt to him. A short time later, he telephoned and asked me to come to his office. I do not now remember the exact interval. When I went there, he could not look me in the eye and kept his head lowered. He handed my folder back to me. I preserve here the words that remain in my memory: “Son, I do not know what kind of case yours is. May Allah Himself help you. Simply by asking Parliament about your name, the Senate decided to close the place I had run for 22 years. Now I am saving my own life. I do not know what kind of case this is.” I am not inventing this connection myself and attributing it to him. The person I had approached for assistance himself told me that, after asking Parliament about my name, he had faced a decision to close his service. I personally heard these words. The End of Inna Ziporius’s Assistance These earlier events are also important to my assessment of what happened concerning Inna Ziporius. She had helped me even though she was not my officially appointed legal guardian. Having witnessed her honest conduct, I tried to obtain her continuing support. I later learned that her workplace had changed from Neukölln to Wittenau. I did not know the address of her new office. During a chance meeting, I asked for her address and said that I was fighting to obtain her assistance. She told me that she would no longer help me and did not want to continue the contact. Ziporius did not explain the reason to me. I do not attribute words to her that she did not say. However, I do not assess her withdrawal separately from the events described above. My conclusion is that people who honestly helped me encountered problems, and this prevented the assistance from continuing. After I could no longer obtain her support, I was forced to request another legal guardian who spoke Turkish and with whom I could communicate. Telekom - A Brief Example of the Struggle I Conducted Myself The extensive documents concerning the Telekom matter are in a separate folder. Here, that case is an episode showing both the burden I carried myself and the actual assistance provided by Ziporius. After collecting numerous bills, payments, complaints, and responses in sequence, I submitted to the court an eight-page explanatory statement referring to attachment number 83, together with the collection of documents. I myself showed what I had asked, what response had been given, and where the contradictions lay. On 16 January 2007, in Amtsgericht Neukölln case 3 C 246/06, Telekom’s claim against me was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the company. Ziporius also helped me in this dispute and contacted the company concerning the disconnection of the DSL connection despite a payment agreement. Although I prepared the documents myself and won the case, I needed her assistance. That was precisely why I continued my struggle to obtain her support. Arcor, E-Plus, other telephone disputes, and proceedings concerning gas, electricity, housing, and various authorities are preserved in separate folders. Conducting these simultaneously while ill was a heavy burden. 2006–2007 - The Continuing Need for Support Harald Lilge’s correspondence dated 15 March 2006 again shows my need for housing and organisational assistance. Assistance from a lawyer did not replace the help of a person who would organise my daily life, treatment, and all my dealings with authorities. The Agentur für Arbeit’s medical assessment dated 25/27 September 2006, taking an additional psychiatric opinion into account, states that I was probably permanently unable to work at least 15 hours per week. Other medical certificates in the folder also document numerous physical illnesses and a severe psychological crisis. My request for assistance was not an abandonment of my determination to defend my rights. I wanted reliable support so that I could exercise those rights despite my serious health condition. 2007 - The Guardianship Application and the Refusal Decision On 6 June 2007, I applied for the appointment of a legal guardian. On 7 June, a medical expert assessment and a social assessment were initiated in Amtsgericht Tiergarten case 50 XVII 6504. The court also asked me to identify someone I trusted and could propose as a legal guardian. On 14 July, expert Dr. Waltraut Wille asked me to contact her to arrange an examination appointment at my home. In her letter of 1 September, she stated that she had been unable to establish contact with me. Subsequent court correspondence also discussed the possibility of my being brought in compulsorily for examination. On 9 November 2007, the appointment of a legal guardian was refused. The failure to obtain a medical expert opinion and the question of cooperation with the examination formed the basis of the decision. In my objections, I described my serious illnesses, forgetfulness, and difficulty keeping track of appointments and legal deadlines. My principal objection is this: the difficulties that caused me to seek assistance were again placed before me as obstacles in the process of obtaining that assistance. I also had to struggle alone to explain my need for support and obtain it. 2008 - Continuing Applications to Higher Courts On 16 January 2008, the Amtsgericht did not change its previous decision; it considered compulsory presentation for examination disproportionate in proceedings initiated by my own application. On 18 April 2008, Landgericht Berlin - 87 T 25/08 dismissed my appeal. On 26 June 2008, Kammergericht - 1 W 187/08 declared my further appeal inadmissible because of formal requirements concerning a lawyer’s signature or recording the appeal at the court registry. This decision was not a new assessment of the merits of my need for assistance. On 8 October 2008, Bundesgerichtshof - XII ZB 131/08 did not admit the subsequent legal appeal and refused my request for legal aid covering court costs. The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s letters dated 21 October and 21 November 2008, reference AR 6660/08, set out requirements concerning the substantiation of a constitutional complaint, precise identification of the decisions, and deadlines. These are not court decisions determining a constitutional violation on its merits. The folder also preserves my replies to those letters and my renewed objection dated 24 December 2008. The Principal Situation Shown by This Folder The documents show that my need for support continued for years: housing and health problems were recorded, assistance was recommended but not funded, and applications for guardianship and appeals to higher courts followed. Throughout that period, I tried to manage my daily life, treatment, and numerous legal disputes myself. My firm accusation is that, although my need was known, being deprived of effective and reliable support worsened my health and harmed my ability to defend my rights. I do not accept treating this as a series of separate administrative difficulties without consequences. The testimonies I have added here must also leave a record in the archive. What the people helping me said, what interventions they made, and how the assistance subsequently stopped form part of the overall history. The absence of separate written records of these events should not prevent their preservation here as my personal testimony. This first folder shows the period in which I sought assistance and those requests remained unsuccessful. The subsequent appointment of legal guardians whom I did not know, my allegations concerning their criminal conduct, and their deliberate loss or withdrawal of my court cases are presented separately in the explanatory accounts for the second and third folders.