Another letter to Politiken and Berlinske.

Delhi NY USA Sept. 16. 2013

 To whom this may concern.

 I have been sending your paper a story I think you are obligated to cover, but no response. I hereby I send it again by certified letter and I will keep on sending you until I get an answer. You can get more information by contacting me at XXXXXXXXXX  or my attorney in Iceland at XXXXXXXX  If you need to talk to my attorney I can give you his phone number, but have to ask him first.

 Is there anything in what I write you don’t believe? At this point I only want you to confirm these two judges at the Human Right Court in Strasburg knew each other when one of them dismissed the case. They must have and Päivi Hirvelä from Finland know that Ms. Ineta Ziemele from Lithuania is married to Mr. Gudmundur Alfredsson.

 It is obviously a complication Mr. Alfredsson, the deciding witness in the case, is connected to the Court. Let’s not forget the grounds for going to Strasburg was Mr. Alfredsson’s connection to the City of Reykjavik.

 If like I claim something went wrong at the Court in Strasbourg it must be a story you have to cover, anything else has to be corruption in my mind. I accept that if you can get a satisfactory explanation, I will have to bark up another tree. I am not a journalist, difficult for me to get the right information. When you call from a major paper, you will get respect I will not get. I was able to have my attorney in Iceland write a letter to the court that was never answered. I am sending that too.

 Maybe you say this doesn’t concern you, something I should keep in Iceland. The European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg is a European court and this issue connects directly to the Scandinavian Countries, Denmark part of them. Also a big part of my family lives in Denmark, but maybe Human rights is passé these days.

 The lawyers in Iceland I had working for me have to live there and survive, I can not expect them to fall on their swords for me even though I get very frustrated sometimes. It was extremely difficult to have them write this letter and as you can see it was done at arms length. Their explanation, letters like these are done this way. No answer from the court what so ever, no response. Am I supposed to sue the court, what can I do? I have no resources to bring this case any further.

 Both my grandfather’s children were born in Denmark to a Danish mother, my father  and aunt. My father moved to Iceland as a young man to live with his father where he met my mother. They later moved to Denmark when I was a young man, fled because the situation around my grandfather became unbearable for my father. My grandfather by then a national treasure of Iceland and the family thought to be in the way. My aunt married a journalist at the Land og Folk if I am right, I know they fled to Sweden during the war. I am telling you this so you understand my family has roots in Denmark. Two of my sisters live in Denmark presently.

 The least you can do is to respond and tell me you have read what I sent you. And if you don’t think this is a story for you to cover, then you have to tell me WHY.

 

Respectfully Ingimundur Kjarval

 -----------------------------------------------------

Here is the letter sent to the Human rights Court in Strasburg:

European Court of Human Rights

67075 Strasbourg Cedex,

France

 

                                                                                                                                       Reykjavik, 11 October 2010

 

Subject: Case No. 41787/08: Kjarval vs. Iceland.

 

The undersigned attorney represented the interests of Ingimundar Kjarval in case no. 41787/08 Kjarval vs. Iceland, which was based on his request submitted to the Court on 27 August 2008.

In a letter dated 2 February 2010 the undersigned was advised that the European Court of Human Rights had concluded that no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights had been established or plausibly shown to have been committed, and that there would be no further substantive consideration of the case. It was made clear that this conclusion was final,  that no information would be forthcoming about its rationale, and that it was not open for discussion. Also, it was noted that Judge P. Hirvela from Finland had authored the Court‘s conclusion.

My client has requested that I submit certain observations to the Court on its procedures in the case. These pertain to its handling by a sole judge as well as possible bias on the part of Judge P. Hirvela.

My client considered that his rights had been violated by Icelandic authorities in the manner detailed in his submission to the Court and that at issue were important material interests. Since he does not have information about the rationale of Judge P. Hirvela‘s rejection of his claims, he cannot address it.

However, my client wants to raise serious questions about the procedures and arrangements whereby a sole judge was designated to decide such a case. If the Court considers that to be a reasonable course of action, he submits that care must be taken to avoid the appearance of possible bias on the part of the judge so designated.

Case no. 41787/08 concerned a court case initiated by the estate of painter Johannes Sveinsson Kjarval (my client’s grandfather) against the City of Reykjavik in a dispute over ownership rights to thousands of paintings as well as personal items. The City of Reykjavik based its claim to ownership rights on a verbal gift declaration said to have been made by the artist on 7 November 1968 with respect to the paintings and personal items in question.

The Supreme Court of Iceland‘s judgement in the case showed that the Court accepted as decisive proof  of the artist‘s alleged verbal gift declaration evidence in the form of testimony and personal diary entries of international law specialist Gudmundur Alfredsson who claimed to have been present with his father when Johannes Sveinsson Kjarval is supposed to have made the above verbal gift declaration to the then-mayor of Reykjavik. The other three individuals said to have been present were long since dead when the case came before the Icelandic courts.

Information obtained by my client reveals that Gudmundur Alfredsson is married to Ineta Ziemele, a Lithuanian judge at the European Court of Human Rights. My client considers it reasonable to assume a significant degree of professional cooperation between Court judges from Finland and Lithuania. Also, that it stands to reason that such cooperation may entail personal interaction between them and, as the case may be, their respective spouses. My client does not have any direct information about interaction between Judge P. Hirvela, on the one hand, and Judge Ineta Ziemele and Gudmundur Alfredsson, on the other hand, but considers that doubts may be raised as to Judge P. Hirvela‘s qualification to serve as sole judge in his case. My client notes specifically that the case which he brought to the Court had been of significant personal importance for Gudmundur Alfredsson and his family.

In light of the above, my client requests that the handling of his case by the Court be reviewed in order to determine whether it conformed with the rules of the Court and that there be appropriate redress if such is found not to have been the case. 

 

                                                                                                                        Respectfully,                     

                                                                                                                        for Ingimundur Kjarval

 

                                                                                                                        _______________________________                                                                                                                          XXXXXXXXXXX,

Supreme Court Attorney 

 

 

Athugasemdir

[Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson, 17.9.2013 kl. 13:40]

... but not Ingimundur Kjarval.

Annars held ég að þessi litháíska, sem þú kallar svo, sé frekast lettnesk. Þetta mál þykir mér allt dómskerfinu til skammar og sér í lagi "vitninu", prófessor Guðmundi, sem kannski safnar gullpeningum og málverkum á sama hátt og faðir hans gerði.