To the Court of Justice of the European Communities
With the present complaint and at the same time justice request, I would like to bring your attention on the happening facts concerning my person, Giuseppe Matarrese, born in Silandro (IT) and resident in Insulindeweg 95-2 in Amsterdam (NL) and currently illegally imprisoned in the Casa di Reclusione of Opera (Milan), Italy.
I arrived in the Netherlands in March 2002, I’ve always worked and I’ve been able to achieve in six years the Account Manager position with my last job.
I worked for big companies as Fujitsu, Nike, Palm1, Warner Bros, American Express, ACN, Yardi, Lycos in my career, and this brought me to have many acknowledgments both at a human and professional level.
I went away from Italy because I have been persecuted, for that my political ideals and my way of being were not comply to the fascist-mafious system that is still in power nowadays; I was continually persecuted by police forces whose since I was a teenager tried ceaselessly to frame me up with different quantities of drugs and too often physical violence has been used against me.
After my transfer in the Netherlands, having done plans about building up a family, having babies and living then a completely integrated life in Dutch society, in March of the current year 2009 the fascist-mafious system, perhaps also because of the bad publicity I was doing of it on the Internet (blogs, youtube, international online newspapers sites), decided to give me the final blow.
Dutch police, for whom I was nothing more than a stranger and unknown, came knocking at my door thanks to five MAE (Mandato di Arresto Europeo, European Arrest Warrant) which I will call EAW.
In the first trial held by the Dutch court, the judges were favorable to go along with the defense attorney’s requests, especially for what concerned the awaiting of the requested answers from the European Court of Justice so that they would have been able to express themselves about the case LJN:BL9789 in order to have a juridical path to follow up, inasmuch as that particular case presented juridical issues similar to mine; Dutch judges were therefore incline to wait for the European Court of Justice verdict before taking any kind of action or decision concerning my case, and meanwhile asked questions to the Trento’s Prosecutor’s office “Procura di Trento” concerning the EAW, which arrived from there indeed.
In order to wait these answers, judges postponed the trial 15 days in the future.
In the following trial, a jury composed by totally new and different members, declared that they were accepting the extradition request (despite the questions previously arose by the previous judges and especially despite the answer that the first judges pool decided to wait concerning the case LJN:BC9789) for 3 of the 5 EAW presented by the Sostituto Procuratore della Repubblica di Trento, Mr. Stefano Diez.
With the present document I want to highlight how European laws concerning the matter of extradition have been completely ignored, so as the investigations requested by the defense, all this to favor dirty power games in which Italy (with his representative Stefano Diez) had the main role, with the purpose of expel an honest citizen from his own life which he was living in the total respect of the rules; but above all to turn me unable to be a threat, with my words and writings, against that fascist and at the same time mafious power to whom I was previously referring.
Here further you find the most relevant facts which I want to expose:
1- Bearing in mind that the European countries can’t approve the extradition if the contested crimes happened on a territory which is different than the one belonging to the country which is requesting the extradition.
Concerning my case, the first pool of judges Dutch Court in charge to decide about the extradition did ask to the Italians in which countries the crimes for which the extradition was requested with the EAW were happened; Italy, represented by the Trento’s Sost. Proc. Stefano Diez answered that all the crimes concerning the 5 EAW were happened on Italian territory. This slander resulted to be evident from the same documentation acquired by the Dutch Court, as I presented it myself, documentation in which was proved that for 3 of the 5 EAW the crimes, concerning smuggling of small quantities of drugs, were happened in German territories, specifically Singen, Bietingen and Rottweil.
Therefore if on a hand Italy answered with an evident lie about the place in where these crimes happened, on the other hand the second pool of judges, strangely changed from the previous one, did not care at all about what was an evident lie and took for granted the answer received from Italy considering, with my big surprise that Bietingen, Singen and Rottweil were located not only on Italian territory but in Bolzano’s province, as claimed by the Trento’s Sost. Proc. Stefano Diez.
The second pool of judges allowed then the extradition illegally for these 3 crimes.
Concerning this matter I would like then to recall to the respectful European Court how the Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Law of extradition’s handover, which founds itself in the Article 8 paragraph 1 of the executive decision from the 13th of June 2002’s European Union council, states that an EAW to be considered valid has, in any case, to be complete of a description of the crime circumstances, including the moment (time and date), the PLACE and the grade of participation of the person in concern.
Therefore if on a hand Italy lied about the place where these 3 EAW were happened, on the other hand the second pool of Dutch judges were voluntary ignoring the answers given to the question asked by the first pool, which as well were the reason why the trial about the decision had been postponed, shamelessly allowing the extradition for these 3 EAW.
The extradition has then to be considered illegal, for that does not respond to one of the fundamentals requirements from the EAW own constitution.
2- I would like to highlight that by the Sost. Proc. Stefano Diez side two criminal offences, with forgery of legal documents.
One offence has been the one of including in the charges aggregation from him presented (specifically the fact which is claimed to be happened in Bietingen) a false service of process of offence and a false service of process of sentence, for that the acquittal had already been claimed by the Tribunale di Bolzano.
The second offence has been to include this same fact in one of the EAW.
The Dutch court, having presented by myself all the needed documentation coming from the Tribunale di Bolzano, was not able to deny the evidence of acquittal for the facts which happened in Bietingen, and consequently deny the extradition for it.
I want further to highlight how Diez would have will to persevere in his offence of forgery of legal documents and fraud at my damage by refusing to specify the punishment and inflicted measure of each and every one of the sentences, included in the aggregation of concurrent sentences by him edited, despite the explicit request done by the Dutch judging commission present at the first trial.
The Article 2, paragraph 2° of the handover’s law, which find its origins in Article 8 paragraph 1° of the 13th June 2002’s “decisione quadro” (squared decision?) of the European Union Council states that a European arrest warrant, an EAW, in any case must include each single sentence together with its inflicted measure.
Therefore, having Mr. Diez artfully shown only the aggregation of concurrent sentences, refusing to fulfil these specifications demanded by the extradition law (concerning as above mentioned the specification of punishment and inflicted measure for each and every EAW) with the only purpose to persevere in covering his crime of forgery of legal documents, he committed then other crimes against my person such as:
A- He included, in the aggregation of concurrent sentences from him executed, a crime for which I was previously acquitted.
B- He requested, for the same above written crime, the extradition, committing then a second crime at my damage.
C- Just by NOT specifying (despite the invitations) the punishment’s length for each an every EAW as the law provides for, he would have covered himself by the crime by him committed at my damage, allowing the conspiracy obtained with forgery of legal document to be successful according to his plans.
I very much want to point out that in Mr Diaz’s “cheating crimes game” the support came as well by the Dutch court’s second pool of judges who willingly ignored one of the European Arrest Warrant fundamentals, namely the duty to specify for each and every extradition request the punishment and its length, considering just the aggregation of concurrent sentences presented covering then in evident way the fraud and forgery of legal documents committed by the Sostituto Procuratore of Repubblica di Trento Stefano Diez.
I would like furthermore to remind that the punishment’s length was meant to be specified by law for each and every EAW, hence to all the others EAW presented as well, consequently all the EAW allowed to Italy have to be considered illegal , and not only the EAW in which the fraud at my damage appears so evident!
3- Wouldn’t be all this enough, the Article 6, paragraph 5 from the OLW guarantee to a foreigner whose obtained a permanent residence permit the same rights of a native Dutch.
I have obtained the permanent residence permit thanks to my model behavior and also the fact that I did always work and pay taxes, showing to the Police force dedicated to the residence permits issues that I am a person whose is perfectly integrated in the Dutch society.
If any distinction would be done between natives Dutch and people who have obtained an permanent residence permit, this would be clearly in contrast with many rules of superior bodies, would be in contrast for example with the Article 12 from the European convention, but as well with the Article 21 from the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the EU (2000/C 364/01), either with Article 1 from the 12th CEDU protocol.
At this concern I would like to further highlight that was my right to don’t be extradited, for that Holland does not allow extradition in the case in which the EAW would concern cases in which the interested trials would have took place in absence of the accused (as in my case).
4- I attach to the present petition the criminal claim by me presented against the lawyer Eugenio Aprile from the Foro di Bolzano who, being part of the same criminal plan by Mr. Diez, auto-nominated himself as my defense attorney (without having received any assignment from me nor from my family) and whose the only target was to obtain in illicit manners an additional sentence ready to be introduced in one of the EAW that the Sot. Proc. Stefano Diez would have presented (Klaus Schuster case).
Beyond all this, Mr. Diez gave affirmative answer about the fact that I was totally aware of all the penal procedures in my charge which were included in the EAWs and for which he was requesting my extradition, here committing an ulterior crime of fake witness at my damage, because as I also underlined in my claim against Mr. Aprile I have never been informed nor about that trial nor about the sentence of it, and never I would have relied on such a despicable person for any defense whatsoever.
Giuseppe Matarrese
