Appendix to Application No. 66981/12, Olomouc, 17 November 2013
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
670 75 Strasbourg Cedex, France
Subject: Applicant’s Appendix to Application No. 66981/12 (the right to grow and handle cannabis)
- Upon the initiative of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Prostějov, proceedings which are subject to Application No. 66981/12 to the European Court of Human Rights were renewed in 2013. The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the Applicant’s sentence be quashed for the Applicant’s alleged insanity in 2009, when the crime was allegedly committed; the request was granted by the District Court in Prostějov, and the Applicant was acquitted due to his alleged insanity (see Annex No. 1 – Judgment of the District Court in Prostějov, File No. 2 T 104/ 2010 – 803 of 6 August 2013). Subsequently, the Court ordered that the Applicant undergo protective alcohol abuse treatment despite the absence of any record of the Applicant’s alcohol problems, or a related medical request. Furthermore, an expert statement on the Applicant’s alleged insanity (the Applicant is alleged not to have been aware of committing a crime), was not based on any evidence or medical report supporting the case of the Public Prosecution; on the contrary, it was established before the Court that the Applicant had won the Government Award for raising public awareness about medical uses of cannabis in 2009 and that in 2008 he had started the “Konopí je lék” (“Cannabis is Medicine”) research, in 2009 he had been further awarded with the award of the European Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs for founding and exemplary running the first Czech barrier-free school for adults, and in 2009 the Applicant reached the semi-final of Ernst & Young’s competition Entrepreneur Of The Year in the category of Social Enterprise upon the proposal of Schwab Foundation (see Annex No. 2 – Statement of the National Anti-Drug Policy Coordinator of the Government of the Czech Republic on the Applicant’s expertise of 25 May 2011). Given the overall exhaustion of the Applicant, who was repeatedly accused of the conduct subject to Application No. 66981/12 in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the Applicant did not lodge an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and is waiting for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights because he believes that no crime has been committed and the Czech Republic has grossly denied the Applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention on Human Rights.
- All accusations of the Applicant from 2010, 2011 and 2012 for growing and handling cannabis with a THC content over 0.3% were withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the alleged insanity of the Applicant. Between 2009 and 2012, the Police of the Czech Republic confiscated a total of 2,500 cannabis plants from the Applicant’s research farm even though the Applicant had asked the Police, Public Prosecution, Courts, the Government and the Parliament for cooperation. Since 2000, the Applicant has asked to no effect the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic for the forms and permits to study medical use of cannabis. Between 2009 and 2012, the Applicant filed 7 applications to the Police President for police protection. Because the Applicant is convinced that he did not commit any criminal offence and, at the same time, the Applicant did not achieve by legal remedies due judicial process concerning the accusation from 2010 and 2011 not even before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, applications concerning these decisions of the Czech Republic will be referred to the Court of Human Rights to be decided on. Below is a brief commentary on the evidence establishing the ignorance of the legal order by the Czech Republic when accusing the Applicant in 2010, 2011 and 2012: In addition to new evidence mentioned under points 4 and 5 hereof and connected to Application No. 66981/12, the Applicant provided the Czech Republic with evidence that the Police had no legally binding method for measuring THC content in cannabis, and thus their steps are contrary to the legally binding European method defined in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1122/2009 and contrary to the definition of a cannabis plant under Section 2 (f) of the Czech Act on Addictive Substances (the whole above-ground part of the plant including its cyme). The Police measure THC content in cannabis arbitrarily based on a few grams taken from the cyme which is the most THC-potent part of the plant. Thereby the Police increase the content of THC up to hundredfold and make all cannabis producers criminal offenders. Under Section 29 of the Act on Addictive Substances growing cannabis is permitted without reporting to authorities on a plant-growing area of up to 100 m2 per citizen (without exception). According to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic of 30 January 2008 File No. 3 Tdo 52/2008 (Collection of Judicial Decisions and Opinions No. 9/2008) growing and handling cannabis with THC content over 0.3% for alternative treatment does not constitute a criminal offence. Despite these two facts, citizens are treated under a presumption of guilt, all harvest is confiscated from them and the THC content in cannabis is measured contrary to legally binding regulations. Requests of the Applicant to perform an investigatory experiment in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act have been repeatedly refused. In addition to the exact method for picking and processing cannabis, the European Regulation requires for the measurement of THC content in cannabis to be valid that it be performed on a minimum of 50 cannabis plants, on at least 30 cm long female cymes and at the latest on the tenth day after full bloom, i.e. the tenth day after the creation of seeds because subsequently the content of THC naturally increases! To prove such illegal conduct of the Police explicitly, the Applicant planted Finola cannabis variety which is certified for the whole of EU on the research farm in 2012. Subsequently, the Applicant was charged for its processing. By analogy, law was ignored when the Czech Republic neglected the material conception of a criminal offence under Section 12 of the Criminal Code, under which a criminal offence must show features of dangerousness to society, which was not the case. The Czech Republic neglected Section 31 of the Criminal Code under which an act otherwise punishable does not constitute a criminal offence if it is not possible to reach socially beneficial conduct in any other way. Reaching such conduct is indeed not possible in the Czech Republic. Finally, the Czech Republic also neglected Section 28 of the Criminal Code under which acts committed in necessity when protecting one’s own life and health are not punishable.
- In the second Application to the Court of Human Rights No. 1332/13, the Applicant proved that a court proposal to incapacitate the Applicant was heard in 2013. However the District Court in Olomouc agreed with the opinion of an expert witness that there was no ground for incapacitating the Applicant or limiting his legal capacity and it dismissed the court’s proposal (see Annex 3 – Judgment of the District Court in Olomouc File No. 39 Nc 1631/2012 -166 of 26 September 2013).
- The Applicant proved in the Application to the Court of Human Rights that Czech courts including the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic failed to duly justify the false statements challenged by the Applicant regarding the European law and they completely misinterpreted the statutory duty of the Czech Republic to notify the European Commission of the amended provisions on addictive substances having the nature of a technical regulation (Sections 8 and 24 – growing and handling cannabis with the THC content over 0.3%) according to the duty imposed by European Directive No. 98/34/EC. Czech courts incorrectly stated that an exemption under Article 10 of Directive No. 98/34/EC applied to the Czech Republic, and therefore the Czech Republic did not have to notify the European Commission of the Act on Addictive Substances. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic also refused to admit a serious mistake of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic which had dismissed a request of the Applicant for the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic as the only authorized court in the Czech Republic to send a request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. However, the Czech Republic made a notification under No. 2012/329/CZ, in compliance with the duty imposed by Directive No. 98/34/EC, concerning an amendment to the Act on Addictive Substances amended by Act No.. 273/2013 Sb. which entered into force on 10 September 2013. Thereby the Czech government denied the erroneous statement of Czech courts that an exemption under Article 10 of Directive No. 98/34/EC applied to the Act on Addictive Substances and that the notification did not have to be made! From the constant case law of the Court of Justice on non-notified legal rules having a nature of a technical regulation under Directive No. 98/34/EC follows that such legal provisions are legally ineffective and unenforceable, and thus it is not possible to sentence the Applicant on the grounds that that he did not have a relevant permit for growing and handling cannabis with the THC content over 0.3% (see Annex 4 – Decision of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, Ref. No. MZDR 40243/2013 of 7 November 2013)!
- In Application to the Court of Human Rights No. 66981/12, the Applicant proved that the Czech courts including the Constitutional Court ignored the defense of the Applicant relying on the provisions under Section 5 (5) of the Act on Addictive Substances that allow citizens to handle cannabis (without exception) for experimental purposes without any other permission issued by a government authority. Despite this fact the Applicant was sentenced for research into the treatment by cannabis. Only an amendment to the Act on Addictive Substances and Drugs approved as Act No. 50/2013 Sb. which entered into force on 1 April 2013 (the Act known by the Czech public as the “Cannabis to Pharmacies Act”), which fundamentally reviewed Section 5 (5) of the Act on Addictive Substances and specified that only cannabis with the THC content up to 0.3% can be handled legally. The exact wording of the respective legal provision of 1 April 2013 newly states: “The permission for handling is not required for obtaining, storing and processing cannabis that may contain a maximum of 0.3% of substances from the group of tetrahydrocarbynols and only for industrial (for fibres and seeds) and experimental purposes and for trade with cannabis for such purposes.”
- For his research into the treatment by cannabis, Czech and foreign non-governmental organizations, physicians, scientists, and professors of Silesian University in Opava and of Palacký University in Olomouc nominated the Applicant in 2013 for the Award of the City of Olomouc where the Applicant comes from and where he lives (see Annex 5 – the Nomination of the Applicant on the Award of the City of Olomouc of 28 March 2013). Six Olomouc personalities were nominated, all of whom have participated in the research into the medical effect of cannabis since the 1950s. The award was granted to a world-famous scientist Doc. RNDr. Ondřej Lumír Hanuš, DrSc. who works at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and who discovered the first cannabinoid proper to the human body – anandamide which confirmed the existence of endogenic cannabinoid system (not only) in humans and revealed the reason why the treatment by cannabinoids is effective in so many diseases. Doc. Hanuš has cooperated with the Applicant for a long time and he was one of the first important specialists who participated in education of both professionals and the public within the “Konopí je lék” research (Cannabis is medicine). In addition, doc. Hanuš repeatedly publicly protested against the criminalization of this matter. Unfortunately, the Head of the Department of Oncology in Olomouc made a statement in 2010 to the detriment of the Applicant in the proceedings that is the subject of this Application to the Court of Human Rights that cannabis does not treat cancer even though the positive painkilling and palliative effect of cannabis is documented by hundreds of years of experience. Moreover, a client of the Applicant testified against the Head of the Department of Oncology because her tumors of cancer shrank by almost 0.5 cm after two months of treatment by cannabis extract and she proved the fact by a medical report. The testimony of (not only) Olga Novotná, an oncological patient, may be found on YOUTUBE in the Konopné pašije film (Cannabis Passions).
- Together with other physicians, scientists and experts, the Applicant produced evidence to the Czech Parliament that Act No. 50/2013 (Cannabis to Pharmacies Act) completely prevented sick patients from using cannabis for treatment and essential research because the patients cannot afford to pay the price of cannabis in pharmacies (monthly expenses exceed one third of the average monthly salary of a working person in the Czech Republic)! Furthermore, the Applicant proved that the legal situation for the citizens in the Czech Republic is the worst since 1989 when a political change took place in the Czech Republic and the country became a democratic rule of law. At the same time the Applicant repeatedly proposed to the Parliament another legislative proposal to solve the situation by legislative measures (see Annex 6 – evidence and proposal of the Applicant on assuring affordability of cannabis for treatment and research of 17 November 2013).
Annexes are provided for verification of truth or for downloading on the following internet address: http://esplp.blogspot.cz/
Olomouc, 17 November 2013
Date of birth: 12 January 1962
Address: Tylova 2, 779 00 Olomouc, the Czech Republic