Girls just want 2 have fun[damental] Rights!

While the Legal Service staffers of the EU Commission

were found to tireless pay themselves

another shot of lauding self-tribute,

e.g. to

"ALL legal service staffers

for their

"continued work and support

for upholding the Rule of Law before EU courts

and

during Commission decision - making processes"

Cf.

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/katarzyna-herrmann-25a4b6179_the-acceptance-speech-was-the-tribute-paid-activity-7171932393166065664-23GW?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

They ongoingly refuse however

to the detriment of res judicata & EU citizens

to revoke

their final EU Legal Service Admin decision:

Brussels, 11 December 2020

sj.ddg.002(2020)8442645?XL

The service on you on the judgment of the Cour d’Appel of Liège of 17 November 2016 was effected properly.s

Given that you chose not to appeal or raise any objection to it, that judgment became definitive and ended the litigation between yourself and the Commission

Yours sincerely,

Xavier Lewis Legal Adviser

taken

- aside the EU Courts - in 11/12/2020

that is,

to label its formal special [shabby]

cross-border service request

established under the framework of

long-term repealed CE reg Nr. 1348/2000 article 4,3

+ repealed ANNEX standard form content use of that

repealed regulation

"PROPERLY effected"

cross-border formal service on the back of

EU citizens.

While legality & validity of such cross-border

service

under repealed CE secondary law

Nr. 1348/2000 regulation

was rightfully ruled out

& dismissed

by the German competent last instance court

final ruling,

(according to its chap-registered copy

in possession of CE′s GD legal service

for eventual re-read).

For reason, that a service request,

asking fraudulently for

cross-border mutual assistance

under the repealed framework of CE regulation 1348/2000

causes logically

a violation of numerous CE regulation 1393 / 2007 provisions,

to the perfect knowledge also of those

EU Commission′s EU LEGAL SERVICE staffers.

The EU Legal service staffer′s

REFUSAL

to acknowledge at their LEGAL Service

of the EU Commission

the fact, that

the Belgian bailiff instrumented

and financially well-awarded

by those CE legal service staffers

had confirmed in writing

for the entry into German last instance court dossier

"to himself NOT maintain

in his Belgian bailiff posession

any postal recommended letter

deposition reciept

from part of BP Belgapost Brussels authorities,

Cf.

neither any - signed by the recipient

postal acknowledgement of reciept certificate act

of DEUTSCHE POST:

Cf: Email content of the Belgian Bailiff Bourdeaud′hui :

O./N. Dos: 2251192 - U./V. Dos.:UNION EUROPEENNE / R.

--EUROPEAN UNION / R. A.

Dizer Ayse <[email protected]>

Sent wed 24.05.2017 14:46

l Nachricht 4 Dis20170222073240_2479.pdf (19 KB} ê Dis20170313_134952_6073.pdf (1 MB)

Dear Madam,

We'd like to come back to your e-mail of today.

We are enclosing the certificate of service

received from the German authority

that effected service

in accordance with German law.

In so doing,

the exploit of service has reached you,

and

by your becoming aware

of the contents of

the exploit of service,

the purpose

of the exploit of service

has been achieved.

In our digital file, you will find

the acknowledgement of postal service

SENT TO

the competent authority in Germany.

Cf:

"Forms 1 to 7 are NOT AT ALL for you.

In the appendix you will find form F6.

You must have received form F7."

[Note to Belgian bailiff:

Nope, actually NOT,

given that GERMAN COURT DOSSIER evidence

tells,

you were requesting

mutual assistance distribution

outside the scope of CE reg. 1393/2007,

That is,

upon special wish

of the European Union - service applicant

under repealed CE regulation 1348/2000 law,

where form F7 was NO integral part of

art. 4,3 of CE reg. 1348/2000]

[2nd Note to Belgian bailiff:

"What the EU requests, is what it gets.... ]

Cf: further Email content of the Belgian Bailiff Bourdeaud′hui :

O./N. Dos: 2251192 - U./V. Dos.:UNION EUROPEENNE / R.

--EUROPEAN UNION / R. A.

Dizer Ayse <[email protected]>

Sent wed 24.05.2017 14:46

l Nachricht 4 Dis20170222073240_2479.pdf (19 KB} ê Dis20170313_134952_6073.pdf (1 MB)

"We cannot find in our digital file

the receipt

for the direct postal service

to your address.

We will ask

the Lawyer of the European Union

if she has received

the paper version

and will get back to you.

Yours faithfully

Ayse Dizer

For Bailiffs

Voor de Gerechtsdeurwaarders

EMMERECHTS & BOURDEAU D'AUJOURD'HUI

Rue Dieudonné Lefèvre straat 65

1020 BRUXELLES 1020 BRUSSEL

Tel (02)476.04.01 - Fax (02)476.06.11

______________________________

Whereas

the postal acknowledgement certificate act

+ signature of the recipient

being mandatory required

of course

a) under German Law

cf: specifications of the Member States

pursuant to Article 23

of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of May 29, 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, OJ C 151/5 of May 22, 2001).

In application of Article 14(2)

the Federal Republic of Germany declared that

"Service

effected without special request

directly by post

shall be permitted,

in respect of the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany

- only

in the form of registered letter

with signed acknowledgement of reciept

- and only

under the further condition

that the document to be served is drawn up

in one of the following languages

or is accompanied

by a translation into one of these languages:

German

or one of the official languages of the Member State of transmission,

provided that

the addressee is a national of that Member State"

same as

b) under EU regulation 1393/2007 law,

cf. Judgement Henderson C-354/15

"THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT

of the registered letter,

THEREFORE,

CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE

OF RECEIPT OF SERVICE

?

OF THE JUDICIAL DOCUMENT

BY THE ADDRESSEE THEREOF

IN THE REQUESTED MEMBER STATE,

and

OF THE MEANS

WHEREBY THAT DOCUMENT WAS DELIVERED."

Or cf. C-354/2015 - Cf. GA Bobek:

29.??????Pursuant to Article?14 of the regulation,

one of the possible means of service

is BY POSTAL SERVICES.

?

However, Article?14 merely indicates

HOW SERVICE BY POSTAL SERVICES

should be done:

?

SERVICE MUST BE

by?REGISTERED LETTER

WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

OR EQUIVALENT.[3]

?

Article 8(4) of the regulation

makes the rules

relating to the use of the Annex II form

clearly applicable to

service by postal services.

?

56. It follows that

if the Annex II form is omitted from

documents commencing proceedings

served by post,

it has to be delivered

to the addressee WITHOUT DELAY.

?

Therefore, in my view,

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE

TO REMEDY

THE OMISSION OF THE ANNEX II FORM

BY A LAPSE OF TIME

during which the addressee

of the document served

did not raise

any objection to the absence of the form.

60.??????My conclusion is therefore that

Regulation No?1393/2007

PRECLUDES A NATIONAL RULE

providing that

THE IRREGULARITY IN SERVICE

stemming from the absence of the form

set out in ANNEX II to Regulation Nr.?1393/2007

can be remedied by a lapse of time

during which

the addressee does not raise an objection

to the absence of the form.

THAT OMISSION CAN ONLY BE REMEDIED

by service of the form on the addressee

in conformity with the applicable provisions of

Regulation Nr.?1393/2007."

ZERO reply

was - for unknown reason - however

in the forthcome - until today returned

from part of the Inhouse LAWYER

(GD Legal service) of the EUROPEAN UNION

This NOT

to its Belgian Bailiff instrumented,

NEITHER TO

the detrimentally harmed EU citizen recipient,

NOR to EU Courts involved.

NO decisive evidential proof,

was revealed

from part of CE′s legal service staffers

to EU Courts,

neither to the detrimentally harmed EU Citizen,

as to the WHEREABOUTS

of the non-existent postal acknowledgement

of reciept referring to any postal crossborder service of any BELGIAN recommended letter.

Given that EU citizens do NOT sign

blanko signatures

for NOTHING;

WHICH THE POSTMAN DID NOT BRING!

And this NOT

even in case of an alleged

writ of summon resp. "Ladung"

for alleged newly instituted

cross-border judicial Belgian proceedings

of the European Union

as was knowingly false pretended

with

THE DEEP FAKE AI-TRANSLATION CONTENT

when generated

on order of the Commission′s GD Legal Service

by

AUTOMATED TRANSLATION AI Software

BEING in unholy use at the headquarters

of the EU Commission′s LEGAL SERVICE

and its affiliated GD Translation.

?Cf.

?

While declaring

- for further misleading purposes -

that

"AN IDENTICAL" or "gleich lautende"

German language Translation

of ?the BELGIAN SERVICE CERTIFICATE ACT

was attached

by the European Union

to its formal cross-border service request,

which was however

- as evidenced – carried out

pursuant to article 4,3 of repealed CE reg. 1348/2000.

So that the score of such a decieptful swindle

rockets through the roof,

while the informational content of such an

AI-GENERATED,

DEEP FAKE GERMAN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

amounts to ZERO,

?

if it comes to means left

to understand correctly

on part of any foreigner service recipient,

?

the true amount of recommended letters (?)

2 or 3

sent to whom (?)

under which legal framework (?)

Was it

1. EU regulation 1393/2007

2. long-term repealed CE regulation 1348/2000

The application of which

was confirmed in writing – only - in the aftermath

by the Belgian bailiff instrumented by the EU

with the objective pursued,

to circumvent the salient innovations

set out for recipients protection purpose

under CE reg. 1393/2007.

Was it

3. union law violating article 40

of Belgian judicial code,

with the positive approval

of General directorat Legal Service staffers

given – fully intentfully -

6 weeks prior to the crossborder service

was effected,with those LEGAL SERVICE staffer′s

objective pursued,

to treat EU citizens as 3rd country residents.

or was there

a non-cumulative service,

as the true documents to be served,

were proclaimed

to be diverging in its judicial nature.

?

Given that

the latter of which were misleadingly proclaimed

as NON-CUMULATIVE SERVICE

of non-identical-in-judicial- nature docs

according to the post-edited

fixed legal term reformulation;

where SOME BODY anonymous

had added the fixed legal term

?writ of summon“

to the content of the deep fake

German language translation,

which did not resemble

neither the true different content

of the Belgian original exploit of service act text,

as was revealed

in the German remedy procedure

NOR THE TRUE MODE

of crossborder service requested

by the EU

& its responsible Legal Service staffers

?

pursuant to illegally applied provisions

of long-term repealed CE reg. 1348/2000

plus

union law violating article 40 of belgian judicial code.

?

?

Under such circumstances,

one can evidently declare the post-edited

& AI generated Translation content

being THE VERY DEEP FAKE INFO,

the European Union normally vows

to fight!

?

Whereas Brkan highlights,

NO EU POLICY FIELD ALLOWS FOR

FULLY AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING.[1]

Generally, the minimum safeguards

against such automated decision-making,

especially the guarantee of

‘at least the right to human intervention’,[2]

have been subject to much concern.[3]

[1] ?Maja Brkan, ‘Do Algorithms Rule the World?

Algorithmic Decision-Making and Data Protection in the Framework of the GDPR and Beyond’ (2019) 27

International Journal of Law and Information Technology (n 78) 105. 130 Lee A Bygrave, ‘Minding the Machine v2.0: The EU General Data Protection Regulation and Automated Decision-Making’ in Karen Yeung and Martin Lodge (eds), Algorithmic Regulation (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 249 <https:// www-oxfordscholarship-com.eui.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/oso/9780198838494.001 .0001/oso-9780198838494-chapter-11> accessed 10 March 2020.

[2] 129 Article 22(3) GDPR requires that:

‘[…] the data controller shall implement suitable measures

to safeguard the data subject's rights and freedoms and legitimate interests,

at least the right to obtain human intervention

on the part of the controller,

to express his or her point of view and to contest the decision.’

These are considered minimum safeguards,

i.e., the Member States can offer additional guarantees, where necessary.

[3] 130 Lee A Bygrave, ‘Minding the Machine v2.0: The EU General Data Protection Regulation

and Automated Decision-Making’ in Karen Yeung and Martin Lodge (eds), Algorithmic Regulation (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2019) 249 <https://www-oxfordscholarship-com.eui.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/oso/9780198838494.001 .0001/oso-9780198838494-chapter-11> accessed 10 March 2020.

The author reminds that

at the roots of the safeguard of human intervention was

the ‘fear for the future of human dignity in the face of machine determinism’.

Accordingly, the rationale of the data protection provisions ‘

was grounded in a concern

to ensure that humans maintain ultimate control of,

and responsibility for decisional processes that significantly affect other humans,

and that they thereby maintain the primary role in “constituting” themselves’.

DEEP FAKE

AI GENERATED TRANSLATION CONTENT

CORRESPONDING TO

SHEER STORYTELLING OR WHAT ?

EU citizens may wonder …

Given that no writ of summon

for newly instituted

cross-border BELGIAN PROCEEDINGS

was at all issued

by any Belgian bailiff

on behalf of the EUROPEAN UNION

or its General directorate

LEGAL SERVICE STAFFERS in the case at hand!

So while the EU Citizen was

- as cross-border ?service recipient

deliberately misled to believe

that she was made

the defending court party subject

of any falsely proclaimed

newly instituted cross-border ?service

Belgian ?proceedings.

?

Whereas in the forthcome

it had turned out - only way later -, that

this EU Citizen ?

must have been as service recipient

evidently adressed by mistake

of the service applicant EU

or its legal service staffers

and its instrumented Belgian ?bailiff Bourdeaudhui

?

with respect to any such deliberate misled

service recipients information,

established with the DEEP FAKE

German language translation

- AI generated - content:

?

Pls. see for contrary constitutional guarantees

to the above

the extracts from

the Belgian constitutional court ruling:

Grondwettelijk Hof (Arbitragehof):

Arrest from 19th ?September 2014 (Belgi?). RG 125/20141338

?

“B.4.1 Article 17 of the Judicial Code provides that

"an action [...]

shall not be admissible

if the plaintiff does not have the capacity

and interest to bring it".

As is clear from the preparatory work on the Judicial Code

(Van Reepinghen report, Pasin, 1967, III, p. 322),

the action must be addressed

to the person

who possesses the capacity to answer it.

If a certificate of summons

contains the particulars

provided for in Articles 43 and 702(2)

of the Judicial Code

?

but which relate to

a person other than the person

whom the plaintiff

should have summoned,

the application thus lodged is inadmissible.

?

Indeed, Article 17 of the Judicial Code confirms

a fundamental rule

and Articles 860 et seq. of the Judicial Code

apply only to

irregularities concerning form.

?

B.5.2 The RULES concerning

the formalities and time limits laid down

for the filing of an action

are intended

to ensure the proper administration of justice

and to avoid the risks of legal uncertainty.

?

These rules cannot, however, prevent the parties

from relying on the available procedures.

?

B.6 As has already been pointed out,

Article 17 of the Judicial Code requires that

the action be brought against the person

who possesses the capacity to answer it;

?

if this is not the case,

as the referring court points out,

?

the application in fact concerns

a person

who is alien to

the facts of the case and the dispute

?

and is declared inadmissible

without being able to benefit from

the nullity rule laid down in Article 860 et seq.

of the Judicial Code.

?

This measure proves to be appropriate

in the light of the legitimate objectives

set out above.

?

AS REGARDS

THE PERSON MISTAKENLY SUMMONED;

it is inconceivable that

he could be a party

to the proceedings,

that he would be obliged to defend himself

and bear the costs,

?

and that he could be ordered,

if necessary,

even though his situation

has nothing to do with the dispute.

?

As regards the person concerned by the dispute

who should have been summoned

but was not summoned,

it is also inconceivable

that he could be sentenced.

?

Finally, with regard to the plaintiff,

it should be noted that

the extension

of the nullity provision to

a summons mistakenly served

on a legal person

who is not a party to the dispute

would be appropriate,

in addition to

infringment of Articles 860 et seq.

of the Judicial Code,

aimed to circumvent the time-limit

within which

the action might have to be brought

if that time-limit had expired.

?

?

The omissions and irregularities in question

provided for in the nullity rules

presuppose,

first of all,

that the right person has been summoned

by the plaintiff.

?

B.7 A plaintiff

who has mistakenly summoneda person

other than the person

who should have been summoned

?may, if possible within the time limits,

?bring a new action,

this time against the person

to whom he should have addressed himself

in law.

?

In addition,

if the plaintiff is not himself responsible

for the aforementioned error,

he may, where appropriate,

recover the costs of the new proceedings

from the author of that error.

?

Finally, if the plaintiff is

not liable for the error referred to above

and is no longer able

to bring a new action because of time limits,

he may seek compensation

for the damage suffered

on the basis of

the contractual or non-contractual liability,

as the case may be,

OF THE AUTHOR OF THE ERROR

which caused the damage.”

________

NO NEED TO HAVE A WILD GUESS ANY LONGER

on the issue, that

the General directorate Legal service Staffers

of the EU Commission

LACK OBVIOUSLY COURT? PARTY INTEREST

+ lack cross-border service party interest

on part of the European Union

since the non-constitutionality is confirmed

with the above,

by which it was ruled out to mislead EU citizens,

by adressing them falsely as alleged

future court party in newly instituted

cross-border Belgian proceedings

with the reformulated content

of the deep fake German language translation.

See in reply to the above

Extracts German Gro?kommentare der Praxis

Rohe in Wieczorek/ Schütze

Before §§183,184 ZPO First book

- General rules Marginal 96 g)

?

Requirements for the required translation

If a translation is required,

it must be accurate in terms of content.

?

Not every error,

leads to the ineffectiveness of service

or the right to refuse acceptance

(according to Article 8

of the EU Regulation on Service of Documents).

?

But these consequences are linked

to serious translation errors

in areas

that are severely distorting in meaning,

in other than marginal text areas.

?

If a translation is available at all,

the service must be carried out

if it is not only a evidently

completely useless fake translation. [1]

?

The focal assessment point is

whether the addressee is enabled

to see THE PURPOSE

of the translated document

and react efficiently.

[Given that the cross-border service of

writs of summon resp. ?Ladung“

trigger totally different TIME LIMITS

with respect to any remedial course,

compared to

the cross-border service of judgements.

All of which must be correctly calculated

by each cross-border service recipient

under massively aggravated conditions

as is owed to 16 years ongoing

systemic mal-transposition of

CE directive Nr. 8/2003 into Belgian domestic aid canon.

Cf.:

and

In addition, when bearing in mind, that

Belgian class justice system

and its self-proclaimed ROGUE judiciary

never gave up on favorising

arbitrary FOREIGNER DISCRIMINATING

fictitious service date determination

when that would benefit

THE RICH & POWERFUL

?the Belgian judge-made-law-style“

But:

Cf. HOWEVER:

BGH Judgment v. 25.02.2021 - IX ZR 156/19

?In this respect, it must be borne in mind that

longer legal texts(can) typically

only be processed by

specialised professional translators,

whose SELECTION and SUPERVISION

poses increased demands.

?

It must also be taken into account

THAT A TRANSLATION ORDERED BY THE COURT

is in fact MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRECT

AND THAT

disputes between the parties

can be reduced,

as to whether

the quality of the translation still meets

the requirements

or

whether the service is ineffective

due to serious distortions of the meaning.

(see Schlosser/Hess/Schlosser, EU-Zivilprozessrecht, 4th ed, Art. 5 Council regulation Nr. 1393/2007 (EuZVO) marginal no. 2; Geimer/Schütze/Geimer, Europ?isches Zivilverfahrensrecht, 4th ed., Art. 5 Council regulation Nr. 1393/2007 (EuZVO) marginal no. 4).“

Now back to:

Extracts German Gro?kommentare der Praxis

Rohe in Wieczorek/ Schütze

Before §§183,184 ZPO First book

- General rules Marginal 96 g)

The translated document must first of all

fulfil its essential information task.

?

?

Translation errors

which can be easily overlooked

by the average reader may thus be ignored;

?

MISUSED LEGAL TERMS

such as

writ of summon resp. “Ladung”

or CE reg. 1393/2007

(BOTH left un-used by the EU and its Belgian bailiff)

which are likely to mislead the recipient

make the translation ineffective!.”

?

Likewise even the

Belgian Court of Cassation[2] considers that?

?

“A FAKE TRANSLATION

which does not resemble the complete content

of the original language text

counts as a non-existent translation

under its own domestic Belgian language law:

?

Pt. 42. According to the aforementioned article 40, paragraph 2,

messages and announcements must be

in Dutch and French.

?

This can only be understood to mean

that there must be

general correspondence in text

between the Dutch and French versions

of the DEED in question.

?

A distinction between the relative importance

of parts of the certificate act in question

is not relevant in this context.

?

If the Dutch text contains a paragraph

which has not been translated into Dutch

from French,

then the Dutch version

corresponding to the French text

is not available.”

[1]???????? See Geimer/Schütze/Geimer EuZVR, Art. 5 Rdn. 4 m. w. N.; Sagittarius FS Boguslawskij 2004,325,334f. m. w. N. and Sagittarius FS Sandrock 2000,871 ff.; OLG Nürnberg, motivation points lll.2)a), 2)b) and 3);

See also Sagittarius, suits before US American courts - Problems and defence strategies, RIW 2005, 579, 582 ("Linguistic inaccuracies and bumptiousness are acceptable, but mistakes that distort the legal meaning are not";

ders.., On the service of US-American complaints in Germany, Festschrift für Boguslawskij, 2004, 325, 334:

?

"The translation must be comprehensible in such a way

that the addressee obtains exact knowledge

of the content of the translated document";

?

the same, Problems of Translation in Civil Procedure Law, Festschrift für Otto Sandrock, 2000, 871, 873 f. "

("Mistakes that distort the meaning will invalidate the delivery.").

[2] Judgment of 19 May 2016 (Belgium). RG C.13.0256.N Date :19-05-2016 Language : Dutch Source : Justel N-20160519-2 Role number:

C.13.0256.N:

In the case at hand

the AUTHOR OF THE ERROR WOULD BE

therefore

the AI automated translation software

of the General directorate Translation -

GENERATING DEEP FAKE TRANSLATIONS

on order of

the EU Commission GD LEGAL SERVICE:

The Ombudsman noted that

while rapid developments in AI can improve

the quality and efficiency of work

?

they pose major challenges when it comes to

·???????? ACCURACY,

·???????? POTENTIAL BIAS,

·???????? EXPLAINABILITY,

and HUMAN OVERSIGHT.

?

She also stressed that

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS MUST ENSURE

THAT AI ONLY ASSISTS

IN HUMAN DECISION MAKING

AND DOES NOT REPLACE IT.[1]

?

[1] CASE?SI/4/2024/MIK?-?OPENED ON?Friday | 15 March 2024?-?INSTITUTION CONCERNED?European Commission

See in same line the further confirmation provided for from part of Koen Lenaerts:

Therefore:

It is worth noting that

the institutional understanding of legal texts

(Directorate-General for?Translation (DGT))

is much broader,

as reflected in?CATEGORY A - Legal texts

in the DGT classification of texts

for quality assurance?purposes.

It covers the core:

(1) EU legal acts and

(2) Documents used in administrative or legal proceedings[1]

and inquiries, including pleadings, letters, legal?opinions.

(3) documents linked

to legal obligations of the EU Commission. ?[…]”

[ As to the existing legal obligation

of the EU Commission

to provide for a corresponding translation

cf. Article 8 of CE regulation 1393/2007.]

“The rationale behind their inclusion

in the CATEGORY OF LEGAL TEXTS is?

that translation errors

in these documents

may create litigation and financial risks?

and may DISADVANTAGE some parties.”[2]

[1] Risk of poor translations

The risk of an incorrect or incomprehensible translation

shall be borne by the service applicant. [1]

?

According to Karolina Stefaniak,

Inhouse staff General directorate Translation,?

“Terminology work

in the European Commission”[2]:

Terminology

is an integral part of

every translation process,

necessary to achieve high-quality translation.

In the case of EU law,

terminology is additionally a matter of

legal certainty and clarity.

Terminological errors

may lead to

citizens and companies misunderstanding

their rights and obligations,

make the harmonization of laws

between Member States more difficult

and often result in legal disputes at national

or EU level,

thus tarnishing the image of the European Union

and its institutions.

The distinction between

?

“easily recognisable” or “SERIOUS” ERRORS,

on the one hand,

and

mistranslations or omissions “

affecting the substance of the text”,

on the other,

is most relevant.

This is why

If the LEGAL SERVICE finds an error

to be substantial,

a correcting act must be prepared

and adopted through

“a procedure similar to that followed

for the adoption of a text

containing errors”

(European Commission 2008: 3),

WHETHER THESE AFFECT

THE ORIGINAL

OR OTHER LANGUAGE VERSIONS.

?

THE LATTER,

e.g. the mandatory due CHANGE of

the original TEXT

of the exploit of service deed content ?

by the Legal service staffers

?

IS RELEVANT,

in those cases,

where the Commission′s Legal service staffers

recieve

?

A NON-FINAL DRAFT

of a Belgian exploit of service deed

from part of a Belgian Bailiff,

?

in order to allow them to decide in final

upon its translation obligation

pursuant to article of 8 CE reg 1393/2007

?

with regard to the lawfulness

of content of the non-final draft

of the Belgian exploit of service draft.

?

Where it turns out however

that in the forthcoming 5 weeks

?

a)? after GD legal service staffer′s final decision

as to the appropriateness or LAWFULLNESS

of the essentially union law violating content

of the exploit of service

non final draft version recieved

was taken

by the ECSL Team

(European Civil Service Law) (SJ.M)

already on the 1st day of reception,

thus showing ECSL Team

(European Civil Service Law) (SJ.M)

- GD LEGAL SERVICE inhouse lawyer′s

fullest contentment

with the application of domestic Belgian

fictitious postal service methods

as proposed

- in union law violating mode

by their instrumented Belgian bailiff :

b)? and after such a translation

was generated

and was returned within 8 days back to

GD legal service:

SJ.M UNIT

European Civil Service Law Team

for the non-final draft

of the exploit of service certificate act

by artificial software translation in use

at GD translation;

?

And where the Belgian bailiff had next changed

his previous intent; ?

?

and had decided instead

to rather effect cross-border service

of judicial documents

?

under the framework of the revived

– yet long-term repealed CE reg nr. 1348/2000

provisions

with the objective to apply

domestic Belgian fictitious postal service

methods,

set out under union law violating

article 40 of Belgian C.J.,

?

– when acting in the name of the EU

as cross-border service applicant;

?

?

FOR SUCH WACKY SITUATIONS,

where the Legal Service of the EU Commission

had thus

another 4 whole weeks time left

for the required ASSESSMENT of LEGALITY

to get undertaken

with respect to

the union law violating content of

the non-final draft service act - text version

of its instrumented Belgian bailiff,

with respect further

to the post-edited deep fake quality

of translation AI-produced

by machine translation in use at GD Translation,

pls. find? the EU commission′s own

binding confirmation published,

by which the EU Commission,

as client of its affiliated GD Translation –

had vowed itself to the Court of Auditors:

“53. (f) The Commission considers that,

as of 2005,

THE NUMBER OF TRANSLATIONS

CARRIED OUT IN FULL OR IN PART

BUT NOT NEEDED

BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES MADE

IN THE ORIGINAL

IS MARGINAL

DUE TO ITS POLICY OF NOT BEGINNING

A TRANSLATION UNTIL A STABLE TEXT EXISTS.

Following the May 2004 Communication,

the Commission shifted its focus

from raising awareness on the cost of translation

?

TO A PRO-ACTIVE DEMAND MANAGEMENT

resulting in a significant reduction

of total translation costs.

THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE

THOSE DOCUMENTS,

which, for political reasons,

confirmed at the highest level,

are subject to tight deadlines ?

that could not be respected

IF TRANSLATIONS WERE NOT INITIATED

BEFORE

THE STABLE DOCUMENT EXISTED:“

FROM THE DOCUMENTS RECIEVED

ON THE EU GENERAL SECRETARIAT′S REPLY?

on behalf of

THE 2NDARY REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

?

it is proven,

that THE TRANSLATION GENERATED

was evidently such a

?TRANSLATION CARRIED OUT

-? BUT NOT NEEDED“.

?

Owed to later changes fumbled into

the only LATER established ?

STABLE original text

of the exploit of service certificate text:

?

Which indicated only then

the explicite fictitious service date

being MAGICALLY INSERTED by

somebody anonymous

?

with the explicite fictitious postal service date

relating to any postal deposition

with BP BELGAPOST staffers

pursuant to

WILLFULLY FALSE CERTIFIED

reference to domestic Belgian article 40

of Belgian judicial code,

?

However this ?occurred NOT

against BP Belgapost

postal recommended letter order

deposition reciept,

since the Bailiff confirmed explicite in writing ?

to lack the legally mandatory required

postal deposition reciept

since NOT being established

from part of BP Belgapost,

as ZERO recommended letter order

was evidently deposited with BP Belgapost, ?

to the adress of the crossborder service recipient

for the purpose of

a writ of summon?

- which did not exist either.

In result it is to state, that

the Legal Service staffers of CE

do have very well binding

POLICY means & measures installed

to prevent miscarriages of

crossborder-service

on the back of EU citizens,

if they would only want to…

As a matter of fact, it is regretfully evidenced

from the documents recieved on

SECONDARY CONFIRMATORY REQUEST

ADRESSED TO EU GENERAL SECRETARIAT

?

that neither GD Legal Service staffers

(ESCL Team), ?

nor it′s affiliated GD Translation

EU civil service staffers

?

wanted to abide to the binding EU policy,

e.g.

?to not process a translation order,

until a STABLE TEXT VERSION

of the exploit of service certificate act original

-?????? as A category legislative text ?-

existed.

?

Instead GD Translation contented itself

to the following mockery on the back of an

EU citizen:

This under discount of

the Belgian constitutional ruling, - cited above-

which had dismissed the idea,

that a court party

could possibly serve the wrong party

with essentially

FALSE? WRIT OF SUMMON

CERTIFICATE ACT? INFORMATION

relating to

newly instituted cross-border? proceeding;

by mode of illegal adding

for misleading purposes

?

THE FIXED LEGAL TERM

?WRIT OF SUMMON“

to its AI-generated & post-edited

German language translation, ?

Despite this fixed legal term

"LADUNG" or WRIT of SUMMON

was not included in

the non-stable - mere draft content version

of the exploit of service recieved.

?

FOR REASON OF EVIDENT LACK OF

COURT PARTY INTEREST –

likewise also

on part of the European Union .

AS TO THE GENERAL IMPACT?

to be minded too

by GD Translation EU civil servant staffers

in its translation processing of

the FIXED LEGAL TERM NOTION ?

?WRIT OF SUMMON“

?

cf. ?VGH Munich, judgment of 20.06.2018 - 4 N 17.1548 confirming:

?THE FIXED LEGAL TERM OF SUMMONS?

refers to

nothing more but A FORMALIZED PROCEDURE

?

THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INFORMATION

ABOUT A SCHEDULED COURT INVITATION.

?

It therefore does not require

the physical handover of a document,

nor does it release the person invited

from any active participation in receiving

the information.

?

However, an impetus from

the inviting body is indispensable,

?

to actually provide for access to

the information of the summons

to be transmitted to the recipients

(Papsthart, BayVBl 2015, 37/38).

?

In the case of written summons,

this is done

by sending

CORRESPONDING LETTERS

to the respective postal address IN GOOD TIME

or by handing it ?over personally.

THE SUMMONS

IS A PROCEDURAL ORDER,

NOT A DECISION.

(Feskorn in: Z?ller, Code of Civil Procedure, 33rd edition 2020,

§ 214 ZPO)

As to the means & measures installed

at GD Translation

to secure the quality of category A

– Legal text translation:

cf. extract of publication of GD Translation staffers below:

■ LEVEL 2: serious semantic impact,

i.e. the error may lead to

a change

in scope

or understanding of

important elements of the text,

such as

- key concepts,

- definitions,

- conditions or deadlines, -

AND MAY EVEN INVOLVE

LEGAL, POLITICAL

OR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES.

?

?

?

CONTENT REFORMULATION ERROR TYPES,

?

?THERE IS TWO GROUPS OF ERROR TYPES

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE

OF TRANSLATION DECISION-MAKING:

CATEGORY OF LEGAL TEXTS

?

Content reformulation corrections

associated with

?

mistranslations

or incomplete translations,

are normally perceived as

SERIOUS TRANSLATION ERRORS:

unjustified omission

UNJUSTIFIED ADDITION

opposite meaning

INCORRECT TERMINOLOGY

incorrect meaning

or inaccuracy.

[1] “Translations for international delivery within the EU?”by Attorney Dr. Philine Fabig and judge at the AG Benedikt Windau* The author Fabig is a lawyer at GvW Graf von Westphalen in Hamburg. The author Windau is a judge at AG Cloppenburg. NJW 35/2017 2503 | Aufs?tze | Fabig/WIndau

[2] Ensuring high-quality translation in a multilingual environment. In Tomas Svoboda, Lucja Biel & Krzysztof Loboda (eds.), Quality aspects in institutional translation, 109-121. Berlin: Language Science Press.?

[2] : Biel, Lucja (2019) “Theoretical and methodological challenges in researching EU legal translation”. In: Simonnaes, Ingrid and Marita Kritiansen (eds) Legal Translation. Current?Issues and Challenges in Research, Methods and Applications. Berlin: Frank & Timme, 25-39.

The European Court of Justice

has stressed the need for the addressee's rights

to be guaranteed effectively and materially,

and not merely formally,

?

for example by noting

?

THE IMPORTANCE OF

"ENSURING NOT ONLY

that the addressee of a document

actually receives the document in question,

BUT ALSO TO ENSURE

THAT HE IS ENABLED

TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND

EFFECTIVELY AND FULLY THE MEANING

AND

SCOPE OF THE ACTION

brought against him abroad,

SO THAT HE CAN USEFULLY ASSERT HIS RIGHTS

IN THE MEMBER STATE OF ORIGIN ".[1]

IN CASES IN WHICH ARTICLE 8

OF REGULATION 1393/2007 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED,

the Court has reinforced the role

that the rights of the defence

are called upon ?to play in the system of the Regulation.

IN THIS RESPECT,

THREE DECISIONS DESERVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION:

- the judgment of 16 September 2015 in the Alpha Bank Cyprus case,

- the order of 28 April 2016 in the Alta Realit?t case,

- as well as the judgment of 2 March 2017 in the Henderson case.

By its interpretation,

the Court has

except in royal rogue Belgian judiciary

thus succeeded

in ensuring the material protection

of the addressee's rights of defence,

?

SO THAT THE ADDRESSEE IS IN A POSITION

TO KNOW

THE EXISTENCE OF HIS RIGHT OF REFUSAL,

by providing for

the systematic nature

and without exception of

the formal obligation to inform the addressee

?

by means of the standard form

in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 .

IN THIS WAY, THE NEW SERVICE, EFFECTED

FOLLOWING THE FIRST REFUSAL,

can more easily contain

?

A TRANSLATION

OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

into one of the languages

SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS

of Article 8(1) of Regulation 1393/2007.

This will therefore enable the addressee

to be effectively and comprehensively?

informed of

?

THE SUBJECT-MATTER,

CAUSE

AND SCOPE OF THE ACTION

BROUGHT AGAINST HIM

in the main proceedings,

AS WELL AS OF THE POSSIBLE LEGAL REMEDIES

AVAILABLE TO HIM,

?

AS REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S CASE-LAW.

In the same perspective,

respect for the rights of the defence

is particularly sensitive

IN RELATION TO THE SERVICE OF A DOCUMENT

INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS.

?

INDEED, THE COURT HAS NOTED

THE CENTRAL ROLE PLAYED

BY THE LATTER,

?

"IN SO FAR AS IT IS NECESSARY

for the addressee of the document

TO BE INFORMED OF

THE EXISTENCE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

BROUGHT AGAINST HIM

?in another Member State

?

and TO UNDERSTAND

THE MEANING,

SCOPE

AND PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS,

IN PARTICULAR AS REGARDS

TIME-LIMITS,

OF THE ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST HIM

?

SO THAT HE CAN USEFULLY DEFEND HIMSELF"[2]

[1] See Alpha Bank Cyprus, C519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraph 32, and Alta Realitat, C384/14, EU:C:2016:316, paragraph 50.

[2] See Henderson, C354/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:157, paragraph 73.

INFORMATION ON TIME LIMITS

IS HOWEVER INEVITABLY PRECLUDED

in ROGUE judiciaries,

who rather aim to bugger off EU citizens

with fully willfully

- preferred by the crossborder service applicant -

fictitious cross-border service date settings.

While the BELGIAN LAW GIVER HAD

with its undertaken

amendment & coordination of

various Belgian laws in the field of justice

?

TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

THE FACT THAT

IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS

SUPRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

MANDATORY PROVISIONS

?

IMPOSE TIME LIMITS

OTHER THAN THOSE

?

provided for

in Articles 1048, 1051 and 1136

of the Belgian judicial Code:[1]

?

This for reasons

well enough & bindingly interpreted

by CJEU case law

with the following: C-21/17

99.??????THE FORMAL DEFECT

INVALIDATING THE SERVICE

has to be regarded as

A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

preceding the review stage:

A REVIEW PRESUPPOSES THAT

THE PERIOD

FOR SENDING A STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION

HAS EXPIRED,

whereas,

because of the procedural irregularity

affecting service of the document,

cf.:

THAT PERIOD

HAS NOT EVEN STARTED TO RUN.

?

Regretfully however

Belgian SUPREME COURT judges

neither

its designated ministerial officers,

nor Belgian Court of Cassation

lawyer-bar members

or its else non-judicial court organs involved

?

altogether didn′t bother ?& couldn′t care an inch

their own legal duties,

to mind

a)???? predominant EU law ?

or even

b)??? its own BELGIAN AMENDMENT LAWs of 2014.

instead of seeking to please

the EU Legal Service staffers

by mode of

Court of Cassation Belgian president′s

positive approval

of the secret revival

of long-term repealed CE reg. 1348/2000

provisions on Belgian ROGUE judiciary terrain.

[1] (Draft law amending and coordinating various laws in the field of justice, Doc, parl, Ch. repr., sess, 2013-2014, nr. 53-3356/001, p. 19)

The latter leaves EU Citizens once more

to contemplate on

WHAT ELSE could be more ULTRA VIRES

CONDUCTunder the EU Treaties ?

Respectively to contemplate on

EU ZONES OF RULE-OF-LAWLESSNESS:

Cf.:

Contrary

to the repelling law-abusive final decision

taken by the EU Commission Legal service

in date 11/12/2020

where some of those folks

on assessment request of Mrs. Van der Leyen

labelled its intentfully provoked

EU Law violations,

anyhow being alleged

?PROPER CONDUCT of the European Union.“

Brussels, 11 December 2020

sj.ddg.002(2020)8442645?XL

The service on you

on the judgment of the Cour d’Appel of Liège of 17 November 2016 was effected properly.

Given that you chose not to appeal or raise any objection to it, that judgment became definitive and ended the litigation between yourself and the Commission

Yours sincerely,

Xavier Lewis Legal Adviser

Cf:

Thx & credits 2: Mariolina Eliantonio.

The CJEU judges had however

to the perfect knowledge

of GD LEGAL SERVICE Staffers

of the EU Commission

clarified in its case law with the

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

SZPUNAR delivered on 26?July 2017??(2)

Case C?326/16?P under Pt. 78:

"78 As regards the date of notification

of that decision,

I would point out that

IT IS FOR THE PARTY,

PLEADING THE LATENESS OF AN ACTION

e.g. for the EU Commission′s legal service General directorate,

here for Mr. X. Lewis

on assessment request of Mrs. Van der Leyen

- being the direct supervising authority

of the GD LEGAL SERVICE STAFFERS

TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE OF THE DATE

ON WHICH THE DECISION WAS NOTIFIED

TO ITS ADDRESSEE."

After all,

having paid 528,58 EUR dirty EU budget money

?

TO SHOW THAT WAY

GD LEGAL SERVICE′S? fullest CONTENTMENT

with those violations

of primary + secondary treaty law TEU / TFEU

provoked.

?

THE EUROPEAN UNION resp.

its affiliated CE GD Legal Service

OWNS those cross-border service certificate acts

of its instrumented

& financially well-awarded fraudster Bailiff.

Cf also: JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 1989 — CASE 58/88:

"It must be borne in mind that,

although a decision is properly notified

within the meaning of the Treaty

if it reaches the addressee

and puts the latter in a position

to take cognizance of it

(Case 6/72 Europembalkge and Continental Can vCommission [1973] ECR 215),

it is for the party claiming

that an action is out of time

to prove THE DATE on which

the decision was notified

(Case 108/79 Belfiore vCommission [1980] ECR 1769, and Joined Cases 193 and 194/87 Maurissen vCourt of Auditors [1989] ECR 1045)

There is NOTHING in the papers

before the Court to indicate

the date

on which the memorandum of 6 February 1987

was received by its addressee.

At the hearing, the Court questioned

the Commission's representatives

on this point,

but they merely pointed to

the applicants' silence

in not denying having received

the memorandum of 6 February 1987.

THAT ARGUMENT put forward

by the Commission

CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF

and, consequently,

the plea of inadmissibility

based on the allegation

that the complaint was submitted out of time

must be dismissed"

Or cf. Strasbourg CASE OF CHEREDNICHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications Nrs. 35082/13 and 4 others - see list in Annex I)

Judgement

STRASBOURG November 7, 2017 DEFINITIVE 05/03/2018

?

(a)? General principles

64.? The Court reiterates the principles

?

43.? THE RIGHT TO A COURT IMPLIES THE RIGHT

TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION

OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS,

in particular in cases where an appeal must be lodged

within a certain time limit.[1]

?

45.? The right of action or appeal

must be exercised

from the moment

when the persons concerned can actually hear judicial decisions

?which impose a burden on them

or could affect their legitimate rights or interests.

?

OTHERWISE, COURTS AND TRIBUNALS COULD,

by delaying the notification of their decisions,

SUBSTANTIALLY SHORTEN THE TIME LIMITS

FOR APPEAL,

OR EVEN MAKE ANY APPEAL IMPOSSIBLE.

?

THE MANNER

in which the court decision

is brought to the attention of a party

?

MUST MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY

THE DELIVERY of the decision to the party

as well as THE DATE of such delivery.[2]?

[1] (Zavodnik v. Slovenia, nr.. 53723/13, § 71, 21 May 2015).

[2] (Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 49-50, 10 February 2005, and Strijak v. Ukraine, nr. 72269/01, § 39, 8 November 2005).

In result it is

NO GOOD IDEA TO REMAIN MUTE

at the headquarters of the EU Commission′s

LEGAL SERVICE staffers,

when its instrumented Belgian Bailiff

had confirmed in writing in 05/2017

for submission to the last instance German court

- German court dossier content -, that

"he will seek

THE REPLY

of the Lawyer of the EUROPEAN UNION

as to the whereabouts

of the non-existing paper version

of any postal

DEUTSCHE POST recommended letter

acknowledgement of reciept

+ signature of any recipient

of the alleged "PROPER" postal

cross-border service EFFECTED.

All of which was left in reality unprocessed

by GD Legal Service staffers

of the EU Commission.

PLS. NOTE:

FOR ITS OWN LEGAL CERTAINTY-CONCERNS

- as applied under the EU civil servant statut,

THE EU INSTITUTIONS

RESERVE THEMSELVES

THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO GIVE VALIDITY,

TO FICTITIOUS SERVICE DATES

on behalf of

their EU civil servant staffer′s complaint docs.?

?

For reason of

THOSE INSTITUTION′S INTERNAL WISDOM

& INHOUSE LAWYER′S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, that:

THE TIME-LIMITS for lodging a complaint,

‘established in order to ensure

clarity and certainty of legal situations’,

are a matter of public policy.[1]

?

IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT

TO IMAGINE

TWO DIFFERENT DATES

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE DATE

on which the complaint was lodged

IN THE LIGHT OF

THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY;

?

THAT IS WHY

‘THE DATE on which the complaint

vis-à-vis the applicant is deemed

to have been lodged with the administration

?

MUST ALSO BE THE DATE ON WHICH

THE PERIOD for replying to the administration

BEGINS TO RUN’[2].

?

?

SINCE THE MERE DEPOSITION WITH THE POST

IS NOT IN ITSELF CAPABLE

OF ‘PROVIDING A SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN

INDICATION AS TO THE DATE

?

on which the letter containing the complaint

will be forwarded to the institution

to which it is addressed’[3],

?

?

the complaint is deemed to have been lodged

ON THE DAY ON WHICH IT IS RECEIVED

by the mail department

of the institution to which it is addressed.[4]

?

Thus, ?THERE IS 2 TYPES OF EU CITIZENS?:

a) Those ?LEGAL SERVICE STAFFERS

OF THE EU COMMISSION?

perfectly well benefitting from their rights

under their EU Civil servant statut,

?TO NOT GET MOLESTED WITH

fictitious postal service dates settings,

?

and

?

b) EU citizens

- living law-conform registered, lifelong abroad

in their home country of nationality,

?

against whom those EU Civil servants,

e.g. in the case at hand,

the EU Commission′s LEGAL SERVICE STAFFERS

decide intentfully precisely such abuse

by applying union law violating

fictitious cross-border service date settings,

?

while ?the EU Legal Service′s inhouse lawyers,

know themselves perfectly well that

?

its BELGIAN bailiff instrumented,?

– non-final draft of

the service-certificate-act-content

-????? when therein rambling

about union law violating

?domestic Belgian fictititious service methods“,

?

resp.: when rambling therein of

THE? MERE DEPOSITION

OF A POSTAL RECOMMENDED LETTER ORDER?

IS NOT IN ITSELF

CAPABLE OF ?‘PROVIDING

A SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN INDICATION

AS TO THE DATE

on which the recipient would be in a position

to acknowledge

with own signature the postal reception

of such documents.

?

In that regard,

the registration stamp

affixed by the administration

to the complaint document

?

‘constitutes a means of sound administrative

management

?

such as

to give rise to the presumption,

- until proven otherwise,

that the document reached it on

the date indicated’.

?

The complainant cannot

“suffer from

FACTORS BEYOND HIS CONTROL

which may delay

the transmission of his complaint letter.

?

IN PARTICULAR, HE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE

FOR

DEFECTS OR DELAYS

?IN THE TRANSMISSION OF SERVICES

IN USE

WITHIN THE RECEIVING INSTITUTION’[5].

?

THE BURDEN OF PROOF ?OF

SUCH A MALFUNCTION

lies with the official,

who may, for example, produce

?

‘A RECEIPT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION

or

AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

OF A LETTER

SENT BY REGISTERED POST’.

[1] 7 June 2006, Cavallaro v Commission, Case T-375/02, paragraphs 97-99 and the case-law cited.

[2] 25 September 1991, Lacroix v Commission, Aid. T-54/90, paragraph 26.

[3] See in particular ECJ, 26 November 1981, Michel v Parliament, Case 195/80, paragraphs 8 and 13 and CFI, 25 September 1991, Lacroix v Commission, Case T-54/90, paragraph 31.

[4] 25 September 1991, Lacroix v Commission, Case T-54/90, paragraph 30.

[5] See (order.), 15 May 2006, Schmit v Commission, Case F-3/05, paragraphs 28-30.

And it is equally NO GOOD IDEA

of Mr. X. Lewis

to written - knowingly false pretend in

11/12/2020,

that service was effected "properly".

When it is TO THE CONTRARY evidenced that

NO BODY,

NO LAWYER of the EU,

NO Belgian Bailiff instrumented,

NO EU COURT JUDGE

,

has ever seen

or maintains decisive evidential proof

for any union law conform effected

VALID postal

or VALID formal

cross-border service effected.

This in particular NOT in the event

where the service certificate act was

falsely certified

from part of a Belgian fraudster Bailiff ,

when being on special mission

to fullfil the SPECIAL WISH

of the EU Commission - GD Legal Service,

to treat an EU Citizen, domiciled LIFELONG in

her home country of Nationality

fully intentfully like

a 3rd country - non EU citizen

e.g. under the scope of unionwide

long-term prohibited article 40 of

Belgian judicial code.

And this under the framework of

secretly revived CE reg. 1348/2000

Cf. the findings of Strasbourg Court

Judgement in

CASE OF?GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos.?2430/06,?1454/08,?11670/10?and?12938/12)

?

?This means that

WHICHEVER SPECIFIC METHOD IS CHOSEN

TO NOTIFY THE PARTIES,

?

domestic courts should normally

be in possession of evidence

confirming receipt of notification

by the addressee[1].

?

?

THIS EVIDENCE

should enable the domestic courts

to ascertain

whether the judicial summonses

had reached the parties

sufficiently in advance

?

AND, SHOULD THIS NOT BE THE CASE,

adjourn the hearing.

?

?The Court has found a violation of Article 6

of the Convention

IN MANY RUSSIAN CASES

WHERE DOMESTIC COURTS DID NOT CHECK

WHETHER OR NOT

PROOF OF RECEIPT HAD BEEN OBTAINED

?

AND CONFINED THEIR ANALYSIS to

A GENERAL OBSERVATION

that THE PARTY had been “DULY NOTIFIED”,

?

UNSUPPORTED

BY ANY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY.[2]

?

?IT FOLLOWS THAT DOMESTIC COURTS

HAVE A DUTY

TO EXAMINE THE PROOF OF RECEIPT

which

MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THEIR POSSESSION,

AND TO RECORD THEIR FINDINGS

in the text of the judgment.

?

THE MANNER IN WHICH

THE COURTS HAVE EXAMINED THIS ISSUE

is the focal point of the Court’s inquiry

in similar cases[3].

?

?

37.??For their part,

the litigants have a corresponding obligation

to provide up-to-date contact information

and indicate any changes

that may have occurred

in the course of proceedings[4].?

[1] (see paragraph 17 above, and?Zemlyachenko v.?Russia, no.?23866/06, § 22, 22 January 2013;?Zelenkov v. Russia, no.?29992/05, § 25, 18 April 2013; and?Litvinova, cited above, § 16)

[2] (see, in addition to the cases cited in paragraph 34 above,?Vorobyev v. Russia, no.?15722/05, §?23, 9 October 2012;?Puzyrevskiy v. Russia, no.?41603/05, § 20, 9 October 2012;?Sazonov v. Russia, no.?1385/04, § 24, 16 October 2008; and?Zaytseva v. Russia, no.?11583/05, § 26, 26 November 2009).

[3] (see?Kolegovy, cited above, § 41;??vü? v. Turkey, no.?42981/04, § 49, 13 October 2009; and?Nikoghosyan and Melkonyan v. Armenia, nos.?11724/04?and?13350/04, §?39, 6 December 2007)

[4] (see paragraph 31 above)

In this way,

RUSSIAN Courts and BELGIAN Courts

have a lot in common

with respect to

the filtering modes in use

at Belgian Court of Cassation;

WHERE THE PRESIDENT

OF COURT OF CASSATION

simply invents in May 2017,

to have allegedly seen

postal cross-border service delivery evidence,

Despite the fact,

that the Belgian bailiff had in writing confirmed,

in that same May 2017

to himself

neither maintain in his possession

a) the DEUTSCHE POST

postal acknowledgement

of reciept certificate act, signed by any recipient,

nor

b) the BELGAPOST postal deposition reciept,

which would confirm

with tracing option, that

a BELGIAN RECOMMENDED LETTER ORDER

was at all placed

with Belgapost staff against payment

of due Belgian postal fees.

[Note to self:

EU citizens would like to try themselves

a portion of such

hallucinatory MUSHROOMS

as must have been digested by

President of Belgian Court of Cassation,

when boldly rendering own

POSTAL SERVICE assessment

under the scope of secretly revived

yet long term repealed CE reg. 1348/2000]

?

THOSE ARE THE FILTERING MODES

OF BELGIAN COURT OF CASSATION

in order to bugger off remedies

as for example

prejudicial requests of an EU Citizen

a) on the validity

of longterm repealed CE reg. 1348/2000

b) on the 13 years long ongoing

mal-transposition of CE directive Nr. 8/2003 at

BELGIAN SELF PROCLAIMED

ROGUE JUDICIAIRY STATEHOOD.

With this Belgian Court of Cassation

President′s ?denial

making sure, to NOT get that access

to EU Citizen′s true,

e.g., ?gesetzliche“ CJEU Judges.

Thus,

THE SCORE of acting rule of law defenders,

who would request

from the Belgian bailiff

- instrumented by the EU -

at this Belgian Court of Cassation ?

?

a) the mandatory required

evidential proof

of postal acknowledgement of reciept,

signed by any recipient adressed

?

b) evidence

as to the UNIONWIDE MANDATORY

postal service of ANNEX II standard form,

set out only under CE reg. 1393/2007

?

= 0

WHEREAS

the CJEU Court has recently observed[1],

“A SYSTEM OF MUTUAL TRUST

AND MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

means that

it is for the participating national authorities

TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS

UNDER WHICH THEIR COUNTERPARTS

IN OTHER MEMBER STATES

WILL BE ABLE

TO GRANT THEIR ASSISTANCE

IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER

and IN CONFORMITY WITH

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EU LAW.”

[1] See judgment of 26 April 2018, Donnellan (C?34/17, EU:C:2018:282, paragraph 61)

-Pls. note Mr. Lewis:

Decisions of EU civil servant staff

should be balanced and based on

a thorough analysis of THE RELEVANT RULES

and underlying facts.

The duty of loyalty requires that

DG LEGAL SERVICE staffers aim at

achieving the Commission’s objectives

effectively and efficiently,

and dutifully implement

its LEGITIMATE decisions.

In EU LAW

- THE NOTION OF ?PROPER“

comes rather prominently into play

when used from part of CJEU Judges

in CJEU case law Jeanningros,

and when placing EU civil servant staffers,

such as the LEGAL SERVICE staffers of

the EU Commission

under an obligation

TO REVOKE

its EU?LAW violating,

not even prematurely

- but in full GD legal service staff knowledge

of its misdeeds

taken final decision of date 11/12/2020

on assessment request of Mrs. Van der Leyen

- FOR REASON OF

obvious LACK OF EXISTING LEGAL BASIS,

in any event

- when its legal service staffer′s decision

was taken on scope of

a national German preparatory EU Legal act

(in sense of a German Justizverwaltungsakt-T?tigkeit

being however ruled out

as carrying incorrect content

with regard to any

service formalities completion attestation

pursuant 4-12 of CE reg. 1393/2007.,

and was therefore rightfully dismissed by

the competent national [German last] instance court,

with the following confirmation

as to the CORRECT use of the notion of

"PROPER" Conduct of EU Institutions"

which is at least in the eyes of CJEU Judges

in its case law Jeanningros appropriate:

"That would result in PROPER COMPLIANCE

with the applicants’ right

to legal protection, on the one hand,

and legal certainty, on the other,

by preventing the Commission’s decisions

from being deprived, a??posteriori,

of A LEGAL BASE.[4]"

So as long as

the EU Commission legal service staffers

uphold rather

secretly repealed EU regulation law

and rather pursue union law violating

fictitious postal service methods,

set out under

union wide prohibited

domestic Belgian judicial code,

under that repealed CE reg. 1348/2000 framework

there is NO REASON

for any of those GD Legal service staffers

of the EU Commission

to publish now their self-lauding Tributes

to Rule of law,

https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/katarzyna-herrmann-25a4b6179_the-acceptance-speech-was-the-tribute-paid-activity-7171932393166065664-23GW?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

when some of them - breaking it,

as they see fit this.

RULE OF LAW felt so much PAIN

that it got FAVOURITE SCARS?!?

And yet,

with Easter 24 dawning just round the corner

even you -GD Legal SERVICE staffers

can never hold back Rule of Law:

Remember EVERYTHING

- that RULE OF LAW can bring!

1 mo′ THX & CREDITS 2 RBG!