2024-02-09 13:40:02
The head of the office hides the complaints from the Ombudsman
State authorities do not appreciate the fact that the Central Branch of DSMF, which has been in debt for 11 months, has fraudulently “cancelled” the decision No. 2-1(81)-1889/17 dated 07.05.2017 and stopped its implementation. Rather, the assessment is measured by the bribe price. Look at the arbitrariness of bribery and corruption, 161,961 hotlines of the Prosecutor General’s Office falsely registered complaints 30 times in 11 months, but not even once did they receive an explanation from the complainant. The Baku Administrative Court (judge Gunel khanum Sevdimaliyeva) who accepted the decision brought to the attention of the debtor DSMF the obligation to execute the court decision issued on behalf of the state within 5 months, demanded the implementation, and wrote after 5 months that the decision was implemented until 2021.(?) It begs the question, why was the court order, which was to be executed from time to time, suddenly suspended from April 2023? The response of the state authorities and the court to the question is shameful: THE ARTICLE OF THE LAW ON WHICH THE COURT IS BASED HAS BEEN ANNULLED!(?) I believe that the court decision is canceled by the cancellation of the law? Such absurdity is written in which law, which constitution? According to Part VII of Article 149 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which has the highest legal force in the country, the law is not retroactive, only normative legal acts that improve the status of individuals are retroactive. But why are they applying the law that worsens the situation of the 1st rank gas 15 years back? By canceling the court decision issued on behalf of the state, which is in violation of Article 129 of the Constitution? Is this a legal, democratic state?
Milli Majlis (department head Adil Valiyev) responded to the demanding veteran who asked all state bodies whether “the debtor pension body can cancel the court decision issued on behalf of the state” that there is no reason to cancel or change a court decision that has entered into legal force. can’t There was no response to the inquiry, except for the MM, which brought to attention the decision of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court. The head of the Ombudsman Office, Aydın Safikhanli, said that the commissioner for human rights does not have the authority to consider requests (?- MB).
When a complaint was filed with the ombudsman on the basis of Article 1.9 of the Constitutional Law “On the Human Rights Commissioner of the Republic of Azerbaijan (ombudsman)”, the complaint against the law was sent to the DSMF itself, and the response we emphasized – the absurdity of the article of law canceling the court decision was removed as a constitutional act. . Article 1.9 of the Constitutional Law on the Ombudsman states that the ombudsman has the right to hear complaints about human rights violations regarding procrastination in courts and failure to execute court decisions on TIME. But why does the ombudsman not consider the complaint about the arbitrary suspension of the execution of the court decision? It turns out that the head of the Ombudsman Office, Aydın Safikhanli, hides complaints from the Ombudsman, engages in non-procedural relations with the institutions against which complaints are made, and shows disrespect for the Constitution?! Look at the “honorable” disrespect, the chief of staff justifies the suspension of the execution of the court decision by the fact that the debtor DSMF wrote twice that the court decision was executed until 2021, and 3188 manats were already paid to the claimant with the repeal of the law in that year. Is such a right protected? Does the Office of the Ombudsman know about the Constitution? Maybe the pension branch of the debtor DSMF has changed the Constitution according to its “pocket” and that of the Office of the Ombudsman, prosecutor’s office, state bodies? It is the duty of the higher state authorities to answer the question.
Will the newly elected president, or rather, when the president is re-elected, stop changing the Constitution arbitrarily according to the “pockets” of officials and ombudsmen? It is a difficult question, it is dangerous for the president’s lawyers to answer in the debate.
Proud Badalsoy