Skip to main content

A COMPLAINT (Against Austria) to OHCHR in New York

OHCHR in New York

United Nations Organization Headquarters 
New York, NY 10017 USA

International Human Rights Council at the UNO

Appelant: Dipl. Ing, Doctor Wassil  Nowicky, owner of the company «Nowicky Pharma»,
Address: Austria, Vienna, А-1040, Margareten Street, 7

Lawyer: Zhovnerchuk Serhiy Adolfovych, acting on the contract, responsible for sending a copy of the complaint to the FOTCD office (Geneva)
Address: 08625, Ukraine, Kiev region, Vasylkivskyy District, Village Putrivka, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho Street, 25,
Cell Phone Number: + 38 050 3168462



(Against Austria)


Complainant, an Austrian citizen, Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Wassil Nowicky, born in 1937. As a private person, an entrepreneur, founder and owner of the company "Nowicky Pharma" he registered his invention, an anticancer medical preparation based on celandine alkaloids, under the trademark "Ukrain" (Evidence 1 - Patent No. 354644 on January 25, 1980 of the Austrian Patent Office "Method of obtaining new salts of alkaloid derivatives of thiophosphoric acid") + Concession for production).

In the future, he legally sought to register it for use in medical practice in Austria, at the place of his permanent residence, as a medicine for the treatment of cancer. But he was subjected to criminal prosecution for his activities, arrest and a court decision on imprisonment.

The course of events is as follows:

The first application for registration by Dr. Nowicky was filed and given to the Austrian registration authorities in 1976 (application no. 34983/02). Since the patented medication "Ukrain" is made from two already registered substances - celandine alkaloids (European Pharmacopeia 6.0 / 1861) and thiotepa (U.S. Pharmacopeia & National Formulary USP 24 NF 19 p. 1651), so at that time the registration of the medical preparation "Ukrain" was to take place by the responsible state authority without any additional conditions. "Ukrain" is 300 times less toxic than the original ingredients. That is, it has significant advantages over its already registered substances.


Relevant legal provisions for another registration: Special Regulation BGBl No 99/1947. chrome extension: // oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm / https: //

At the same time, for a reason unknown to him, the registration process in Austria was artificially delayed, and later completely blocked at the request of Austria on the territory of the European Union.

On this occasion, having passed all the national opportunities to protect his rights to entrepreneurial activity, Dr. Nowicky appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court, by its decision, established the fact that Austria was delaying the registration of the drug "Ukrain", about which it issued its decision of 2005.

(Evidence 2 - A copy of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights).

For the purpose of personal responsibility to humanity, and the creation of an alternative treatment option for cancer patients, Dr. Nowicky officially registered the use of "Ukrain" in other countries of the world as a drug and officially, as an applicant, produced it at existing facilities that comply with GMP standards and distributed it.

(Evidence 3 - a list of countries that registered "Ukrain")

So, according to indications for use, the medical preparation "Ukrain" was recommended by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine for many types of cancer:

colorectal carcinomas, cancer of the pancreas, breast, cervical bladder, prostate, ovaries, cervix and endometrium, squamous cell carcinoma, small and not small lung cancer, malignant tumors of ENT organs, testicles, sarcoma, malignant melanoma, malignant lymphomas.

(Evidence 4 - p. 2 Certificate Registration No. UA / 9110/01/01)

It should be noted that "Ukrain" is a drug that has a high selective effect. During treatment, it destroys only cancer cells, not healthy ones. The therapeutic index of the preparation "Ukrain" is 1250 (this is the ratio of the toxic dose to the therapeutic one), therefore, there is no danger of overdose in the treatment with "Ukrain". In comparison, the therapeutic index of chemotherapy is 1.4 to 1.8. Overdose is often known to cause fatal consequences.


The positive effect of the drug "Ukrain" in the treatment of various types of cancer is confirmed by a number of scientific publications. More than 280 well-known scientists from 24 countries of the world worked and are still currently working on the study of the special properties of "Ukrain" and its introduction into medical practice, who carried out their work on the basis of research institutes and universities, the drug was presented 296 times at various anticancer scientific congresses, the results of their work were featured in 296 publications in professional literature, 176 of the best of them are available on PubMed (

The emergence of the afore mentioned drug on the pharmaceutical market with special advantages was likely to "harm" the chemotherapy monopoly manufacturers. Especially after the decision of the European Court, which indicated Austria's inaction to delay the procedure for considering the registration of the drug "Ukrain" in Austria, Dr. Nowicky (and his company "Nowicky Pharma"), felt the enormous pressure from the side of the pharmaceutical lobby in the country through the state punitive authorities ...

The apogee of the injustice was the confiscation of 5664 ampoules of the drug "Ukrain" on 11.11.2011 from the warehouse of the company "Nowicky Pharma" on an illegal falsified basis. The rationale and justification for such actions by the Austrian regulatory authorities ("AGES" is the official acronym for the Austrian Federal Office for Safety in Health Care, the Austrian Federal Office for Safety in Health Care) was that the drug was allegedly withdrawn from registration in Ukraine, which should entail the withdrawal of the drug from circulation by the regulatory authority. (Evidence 5 - Confiscation Protocol of 11/11/11).


As of the above date, this was not true, which entailed the commission of illegal actions by "AGES", since in Ukraine the validity of the registration certificate for the drug "Ukrain" by the order of the Minister of Health of Ukraine was temporarily terminated only from 14.11.2011,

(Evidence 6 - copy of Order # 788 is attached)

that is, only three days after the AGES officials came with confiscation to the office of the Nowicky Pharma company in Vienna (Austria).

It should also be noted that the fact of the confiscation and the link in this document, as a basis, the termination of registration in Ukraine, the Austrian authorities recognized the official activity of Dr. Nowicky on the sale of the drug "Ukrain", although until that moment did not recognize it in every possible way.

In the Ukrainian Court Doctor Nowicky appealed against the above-mentioned order of the minister. After filing a claim and given it to the District Administrative Court of Kiev city (Ukraine) by the lawyer Zhovnerchuk S.A. in the interests of Dr. Nowicky on the cancellation of the above mentioned Order No. 788 and the acquaintance of the lawyer with the materials of the court case during the trial, it became known that the Austrian official "AGES" Mag. Hannes Würkner personally applied to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine with a letter allegedly about the dubious history of registration of the medication "Ukrain" in Ukraine and pointed out their persecution of Dr. Nowicky.

(Evidence 7 –  letter from Mag. Würkner to the Ministry of Ukraine).

It should be noted that such actions of an ordinary official and his apply the minister of another country should take place according to the international legal procedure.

“... the activities of foreign bodies within the country, as well as the activities of Austrian bodies abroad, can be

regulated in the framework of international law”- regulated by Article 9, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitutional Law of Austria.

But the Austrian official neglected this regulation, which suggests a corruption component and ordered prosecution of Dr. Nowicky already at this stage.


This assumption was further confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine and the final decision of the District Administrative Court of the Kiev city on the abolition of Order No. 788 of the Minister of Health of Ukraine on the temporary termination of the Registration Certificate No. UA / 9110/01/01 on the temporary ban on the circulation of the drug "Ukraine".

(Evidence 8 - Order # 682 repealing Minister’s Order # 788).

Subsequently, on the basis of the above mentioned court decision, circulation on the market of the drug "Ukrain" in Ukraine was restored. (Evidence 9 - Letter on the restoration of the circulation of "Ukrain").

Dr. Nowicky, with his petition of 12/24/2015, appealed to the Vienna Regional Court, where a criminal case GZ: 2 699606/1-II / BK / 31o55 was considered, and asked the court to make appropriate official inquiries to the judicial authorities of Ukraine, but the court unreasonably neglected. The question is why? Yes, because the entire artificially created, so-called, evidence base of the investigation and the prosecution body against Dr. Nowicky would “fall apart”. But the question still arises, why did the “independent court” “close its eyes” and didn’t see the gross violation of human rights and did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case as well as did not close the case?

(Evidence 10 - Application given to the Vienna Regional Court).

Then the persecution of Dr. Nowicky should have stopped, as it was based on the alleged ineffectiveness of the medication "Ukrain" and an illegal registration in Ukraine, which became the basis for the presentation of suspicion. But the illegal persecution did not stop, and new claims were put forward.


The following must also be taken into account: the Austrian medical law provides for confiscation only in § 76b of the Medicines Act (leg. cit.). In fact, the legal prerequisite, as stated in paragraph 1, for such a confiscation is not met, because the contents of the ampoules do not pose a “danger to the life or health of people or animals” - the exact opposite. However, even if it were - hypothetically - the confiscation would be null and void in accordance with § 76b para. 3 leg. cit., because neither the district administration nor the prosecutor's office ordered the confiscation. The prosecuting authorities, therefore, were not authorized and are also not responsible, is an additional objection here that they acted outside of their competence. Even if the prosecution authorities were allowed to confiscate the ampoules, they should have left them at the applicant's premises in accordance with § 76b para. 5 leg. cit., which says that temporarily seized goods should be left on the territory of the company. Until that time, the illegally confiscated ampoules were not returned to their owner and their condition is unknown.

These actions violated the property rights of Dr. Nowicky, he filed a complaint with the Austrian authorities for compensation for a damage by irrevocably seizing 5664 ampoules of drugs. He complained about the losses incurred due to the confiscation of property, that is, of a drug, which became for him a significant material value.

The application was rejected and the plaintiff was soon arrested. He was accused by the authorities of re-evaluating the drug "Ukrain", that is, in their opinion, because of the high cost, which was noted in the claim by the plaintiff for damages. The absurdity of this accusation is based on the interference of state bodies in free entrepreneurial activity, which is guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of the country. After all, the price depends on his discretion how to sell the product invented by him and belonging to him at any price that he wants to establish on the free market for circulation of goods (in addition, because he had his own specific objective reasons that did not depend on the principle of autonomous centralized pricing in accordance with the law). An entrepreneur is obliged only when considering an application for compensation to document the price set by him, but in no way be criminally liable only for filing such an application with state bodies for compensation for damage caused. But the criminal court regarded this as a tendency to fraud.

It should be noted that in the materials of the criminal case GZ 2 699606 / 1-11 / BK / 31o55 there is a report of the tax inspection dated March 21, 2014 at the request of the prosecutor's office, where, after an inspection of the buyers of drugs, it is stated: “From a comparative scale, according to which the majority of the interviewed witnesses did not pay for the ampoules they received, or that they no longer remember this. Only a small proportion of the respondents indicated that they paid in cash to receive the ampoules, which, where relevant, ranged from approximately 50 to 70 euros per ampoule.” (Evidence 11 - Report of the tax office).

That is, in his application for compensation for damages, Dr. Nowicky could have indicated a reasonable price above 70 euros for an ampoule for solvent patients, since Dr. Nowicky gave out a significant part of the medicines he produced free of charge, on a charitable basis, to low-income patients. At certain stages of activity in time, the scientist conducted extensive research activities at his own expense, which could also be a component of price fluctuations. After all, Austria has evaded the inherent functions of the state to promote scientific research in the field of cancer, and Dr. Nowicky conducted them at his own expense. Therefore, the aforementioned preliminary report of the tax inspectorate follows undeniable proof that Dr. Nowicky did not set a goal in his activities of personal enrichment and did not manipulate pricing in order to obtain super-profits, and even in a fraudulent way.

But the Austrian court in its verdict noted this fact as a set of features of the crime, which allegedly consisted of the institution of patients deceived by Dr. Nowicky with false data about the price and the propensity of the accused to fraudulent actions in his work.

Thus, the charge is based on assumptions. It follows from the fact that the protection of their rights by a citizen to compensation for damage from an unlawful decision by the governing body, the criminal police and the court was regarded in Austria as a criminal offense with the deprivation of even the right to consider this issue in an administrative manner. (Evidence 12 - Request for Arrest).

Also, the question arises, is the transfer by Dr. Nowicky of a significant amount of the drug to patients for free, officially confirmed by the investigation of the tax inspection, is also a sign of committing fraud for the purpose of personal enrichment, by misleading patients?

Moreover, if the Austrian authorities declare in every possible way that the medical preparation "Ukrain" is not effective, and on the basis of open clinical trials in various countries of the world, the opposite is affirmed, and patients want to be treated as an alternative to chemotherapy, then can a free treatment make a person to take these drugs?... And could Dr. Nowicky, if he knew that his drug was ineffective, expect from patients that in many cases they were treated free of charge, positive feedback on their condition after treatment? Or is this review "cumulative", according to the logic of the court, can also be considered a qualifying sign of fraud?

Returning to the circumstances of the criminal case, the main reason for the prosecution was the statements of two people, citizens of Ukraine Olga Kovalchuk and Vasyl Boychuk, to the law enforcement agencies of Austria. (Evidence 12 - Request for Arrest).

From the petition of the police forensic investigator addressed to the prosecutor for the detention and arrest of Dr. Nowicky, it became known that the suspicion was based on the fact that Olga Kovalchuk's brother was treated with “Ukrain” in Ukraine and soon passed away. For this she demanded that Dr. Nowicky should be brought to justice. And the forensic investigator accepted the facts she cited in her statement, but not verified, as evidence. It was strange that such an application should have been submitted to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, in whose institutions her brother was treated in order to verify the contents of the application and conduct appropriate examinations, and not on someone's instructions to the Austrian authorities. But she did just that, and on the part of the Austrian prosecutor's office this was surprisingly accepted and the statement without any verification became one of the proofs for the arrest of Dr. Nowicky and detention for 60 days.

The second applicant, Vasyl Boychuk, a former employee of the Nowicky Pharma office in Ukraine, in his statement to the Austrian prosecutor's office questioned the legal registration of the drug “Ukrain” in Ukraine. But in a judicial proceeding in Ukraine, the legality of the registration was proved, about which the above-mentioned court decision was made to cancel the Order No. 788. Knowing this, and despite the defamation of the applicant Boychuk that allegedly Dr. Nowicky lived according to the passport of his late brother, and that he did not treat his children at the birth with "Ukrain" and other nonsense, police investigators referred to this unverified testimony in the statement and on this based on their suspicion.

(Evidence 12 - Request for Arrest).

The applicant himself, Vasyl Boychuk, by submitting his statement wanted to hide the crime he had committed, namely the illegal seizure of two apartments of Nowicky in Kiev, about which a criminal case against Boychuk is still being conducted at the statement of Nowicky in Ukraine. That is, Boychuk's goal was to denigrate Dr. Nowicky. The interests and calculation of the insidious actions of the militant Austrian officials against Dr. Nowicky coincided with the interests of the applicant Boychuk.

This evidence cannot be legally admissible in a criminal case, since the rules for conducting procedural actions were violated to obtain them, and a check was not carried out to prove that they were true. An appropriate expertise was not carried out.

Most dramatically, the plaintiff faced illegal arrest in Austria. On September 4, 2012 at 9 am, more than 50 police officers, accompanied by AGES, stormed all commercial premises as well as private premises of Dr. Nowicky at Margareten Street 7, 1040 Vienna, Austria. According to Dr. Nowicky, this search of the premises was not carried out in accordance with the law. Dr. Nowicky was unable to summon a trusted third party. He also received no information about the charges against him and was unable to respond to those charges or donate items voluntarily. The search of the house was carried out by officers simultaneously in several rooms of the whole house without Dr. Nowicky. All credit cards, cash and passbooks of the plaintiff and his family were confiscated.

In addition, he was taken to the Josefstad remand prison without being ordered to arrest or arrest him. In prison, he was stripped and had several rectal exams.

At the time of his arrest, he was not questioned. He did not understand at all why he was in prison and was not informed about the reasons for his detention. In addition, after the arrest, Dr. Nowicky was only slightly interrogated, he was accused of fraud because he sold the medical preparation "Ukrain", and allegedly he sold it in some cases at one price, and in other cases at another one. Thus, it was not clear when and for what Dr. Nowicky was put on the wanted list, and he was never even interrogated.

According to Dr. Nowicky, he received an arrest warrant only after his release on 09.11.2012. He remained in the pre-trial detention center in Josefstad, Vienna, for 6 weeks, from 04.09.2012, first with another person, then alone in a cell.

It should be noted that Dr. Nowicky did not hide anywhere before his arrest, led a public lifestyle, and was constantly on the territory of the European Union.

The arrest grossly violated his rights to freedom of movement and free research and scientific activity, inviolability of his home, guaranteed by the Constitution of the country.

His release - after six weeks - took place on the condition that his passport was deposited on bail so as not to leave the city of Vienna, thus tantamount to, de facto, continuing his detention. After all, only a passport, as a rule, can be a means of ensuring freedom of movement. This means that Dr. Nowicky was deprived of his freedom and further without an arrest warrant and without explaining clear specific reasons for his arrest, was in a state of humiliation of human dignity.

Dr. Nowicky was denied the right to contact his family at the time of his arrest. The authorities did not allow him to visit and even contact his family by phone, whose members were also taken to the police station on the day of his arrest and he was worried about their fate.

In a study (1 St 24 / 12w) conducted by the Office of the Central Public Prosecutor for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption, Dr. Nowicky claims that on September 4, 2012, more than 200,000 ampoules of the medical preparation “Ukrain” were confiscated by the authorities without a court permission or order, and 5644 ampoules previously confiscated on 11.11.2011

No court order for confiscation was issued (on the contrary: the application for confiscation was rejected by the court).

From the very beginning of the surveillance of him, including the arrest itself by Austrian law enforcement agencies, a number of violations of the law were committed.

Could it be a mistake of the investigation to use the basis for suspicion put forward to the Austrian Citizen Dr. Nowicky through the dubious content of the statements from the two above-mentioned foreigners, Ukrainian citizens Olga Kovalchuk and Vasyl Boychuk, to the Austrian law enforcement agencies? Or is it a planned course of using non-resident witnesses to fabricate a case? Indeed, in the future, including by the Regional Court of the City of Vienna, by decision of which Dr. Nowicky was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison, with reference to the statements of foreign citizens, whose testimony became the basis for justifying the suspicion and subsequent detention of Dr. Nowicky and his imprisonment for 60 days secondary. That is, the reason for raising suspicion was some circumstances, and the reason for the charge brought and the subsequent announced verdict were completely different.

The question arises whether an investigation has been fully carried out to establish the incriminated criminal violations and the charges brought forward, entailing any term of imprisonment for a citizen who did not evade and pay taxes in good faith as a private entrepreneur, for many years, he persistently conducted scientific research on the creation of effective drugs against currently incurable diseases, did not hide his activities for drug users in many countries of the world, where he officially registered his preparation.

The state of Austria is not in a position to protect a person from unlawful actions that were carried out by law enforcement agencies against the convicted doctor Nowicky. The Austrian law enforcement and regulatory authorities in the case of Dr. Nowicky performed only a punitive function, while also receiving a salary from the taxes paid by the Nowicky Pharma company to the budget. After all, the question arises, for whose funds the Austrian official Hannes Würkner applied to different countries in order to stop the legitimate business activities of Nowicky Pharma, in those countries where Dr. Nowicky is now restoring this activity through the courts. After all, a citizen of any country has the right to freely conduct his activities in another country according to international laws. A long-term international activity of the company "Nowicky Pharma", which is owned by Dr. Nowicky, in no country in the world did cause complaints in the treatment of its citizens with the preparation "Ukrain" invented by him. Why did the Austrian officials unlawfully interfere with the legitimate activities of Dr. Nowicky abroad, with their appeals, humiliating his dignity and with slander against him, while the investigating authorities fabricated grounds for suspicion, qualifying this as fraud, and the national court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and made a dubious judgment.

The final decision of the Supreme Court states that Dr. Nowicky was convicted of professional fraud under Articles 146, 147, 148 Part 2 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

Can the convicted agree with the sentence imposed on him for imprisonment for 3.5 years? Of course not.

The final decision of the Supreme Court states that Dr. Nowicky was convicted of professional fraud under Articles 146, 147, 148 Part 2 of the Austrian Criminal Code.

Can a convict, who has already illegally served 60 days in prison, agree with the sentence imposed on him for imprisonment for 3.5 years? Of course not.

Considering his many years of struggle personally with the Austrian authorities for the free conduct of scientific, research and entrepreneurial activities for the production and distribution of the effective anticancer medication "Ukrain" created by him, he considers this as revenge on him personally and his family.

The charges put forward are not legally substantiated, the evidence in court has not been fully investigated, distorted, and the rules of law applied by the court do not correspond to the circumstances of the case and the current legislation.

Could it be a fraud, like the crown of thirty years of research activity of the inventor, scientist chemist Dr. Nowicky, who received a reward as compensation for an alternative drug to chemotherapy? According to this logic, thousands of scientists and entrepreneurs can be accused of a crime, creating and selling various kinds of goods, earning on the fruits of their hard work. This is also, according to the logic of the Austrian authorities, can be called a fraud.

Is it possible to accuse a scientist of a crime, who, like no one else, knows the properties of his invention in the fact that he found time for almost every patient and provided an opportunity to consult with him in one way or another one. This is evidenced by the protocols of interrogation of witnesses.

Why does the Austrian court consider this public act to be a misleading institution?

Wouldn't it be a good world practice for every inventor of chemotherapy drugs to present their drug personally, in some accessible way for the user and could, looking into the eyes of a patient or his family, give an answer about the consequences of treatment?

It was the overestimated measure of responsibility of Dr. Nowicky that prompted him to such a civil position. After all, the rules of one of the paragraphs of the preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read: "... taking into account that each individual, having responsibilities towards other people ...".

One of the charges brought against Dr. Nowicky was, allegedly, illegal re-labeling of the drug ampoules. But this is a common manufacturing practice for any drug company. The condition for such actions always remains the preservation of the quality of the medicinal product, for which the applicant and the manufacturer are responsible. Dr. Nowicky, as an applicant for manufacture, a scientist chemist and inventor, knows the chemical properties of his patented invention, which is built on alkaloid salts that have no limitation period and acts as a guarantor of the quality of "Ukrain" under any conditions and at different periods of distribution. Not a single document regulates the notifying of the re-labeling of drug users. This accusation, in the final analysis, is also absurd, since the expert examination ordered by the court noted the indefinite validity of the drug "Ukrain". (Evidence 13 - Expert Dobianer, p. 62)

To appeal to the International Committee on Human Rights at the UNO, Dr. Nowicky also asked for legal assistance from the Ukrainian lawyer Serhiy Zhovnerchuk, since it was he who qualifiedly defends him abroad in litigations related to the activities of Nowicky Pharma and the drug "Ukrain", according to Dr. Nowicky, can fully and comprehensively protect him. The court decisions, in which the lawyer Serhiy Zhovnerchuk took part, as the representative of Dr. Nowicky for 7 years, testify to this.

Dr. Nowicky claims that his rights have been violated and asks for protection from the international committee. The arrest for 60 days already carried out unreasonably against him undermined his faith in fair justice and

if imprisoned, he has suspicion of physical violence under the guise of an "accident".

Dr. Nowicky's appeal to the UNO International Human Rights Committee, as the last resort where justice can be established, consists in the following violations of his rights, as well as the declared rights of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Unjustified Arrest: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one can be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one may be deprived of his liberty other than on the grounds and in accordance with such a procedure established by law.

Another reason for the complaint is the failure to provide information as soon as possible about the reasons for his arrest and the charges brought against him. Every person who is arrested should be informed of the reasons for his arrest and the charges brought against him in a language that he understands, as soon as possible. This was not the case. Moreover, the claimant was not questioned within a reasonable period of time.

Breach of Warranties in Litigation:

Everyone is entitled, in the consideration of any criminal charge against him, to the following guarantees, on the basis of full equality:

f) to interrogate witnesses testifying against him or

have the right to have these witnesses questioned and have the right to summon and question his witnesses under the same conditions that exist for witnesses testifying against him;

This was not observed in the plaintiff's case. The Supreme Court rejected the questioning of the plaintiff's witness, and also failed to secure the questioning of existing witnesses against him. The corresponding protocol on the request of the plaintiff's lawyer has not yet been issued. (Evidence 14 - Lawyer's petition)

Like anyone, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal on legal grounds, and the court that must decide on the legality of a criminal charge must, without a doubt, be fair, as the plaintiff doubts.

All persons are equal before courts and tribunals. Everyone has

the right, in the consideration of any criminal charge against him or in the determination of his rights and obligations in any civil proceeding, to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Incompetence of governing bodies:

No one can be found guilty of any criminal offense because of any act or omission that was not a criminal offense under domestic or international law in force at the time of the commission.

Violation of the personal family life and all kinds of encroachments:

No one should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his private and family life, arbitrary or unlawful encroachment on the inviolability of his home or the secrecy of his correspondence, or unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.

Forcing action to be humble towards authority:

Everyone has the right to be protected by the law from such interference or such infringement.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty on the sole ground that

he is unable to fulfill any contractual obligation.

Unjustified criminal punishment:

No one should be tortured or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The plaintiff was denied the right to due process.

Thus, all domestic options have been exhausted and further remedies remain closed. Domestic remedies were not fully available to the applicant, since, according to his claim for damages, he was not humiliated and taken into custody.

The rights of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are violated: Articles: 7,9,11,14,15,17.




1. Make a decision on the need to investigate the facts of the application of persecution.

2. Unlawful detention.

3. Judicial review of the criminal case.






Supplements in the form of written evidence:

1. Evidence 1 - Patent No. 354644 dated January 25, 1980.

Production concession.

2. Evidence 2 - A copy of the judgment of the European Court.

3. Evidence 3 - a list of countries that have registered "Ukrain"

4. Evidence 4 - page 1-2 of the Marketing Authorization.

5. Evidence 5 - Protocol of confiscation of 11.11.11.

6. Evidence 6 - a copy of the Minister's Order No 788.

7. Evidence 7 - letter from Mag. Hannes Würkner to the Ministry of Ukraine.

8. Evidence 8 - Order # 682 to cancel Order # 788.

9. Evidence 9 - Letter of restoration of the circulation of "Ukrain".

10. Evidence 10 - A petition filed with the Vienna Regional Court.

11. Evidence 11 - Report of the tax office.

12. Evidence 12 - Request for arrest.

13. Evidence 13 - expert opinion Dobianer, p. 62 of 62.

14. Evidence 14 – Adrian Hollaender's lawyer's petition.

15. The verdict of the court.




Dr. Wassil Nowicky


A COMPLAINT UNO (russian).pdf348.45 KB