The site is under construction  

We are using terminology and the legal definitions from the following document. The definition are broader then usually applied including favorism.

   

TUNA 25:12 BYGG 2021.68 2021.69 major consideration we do not concent with the decision no decision pepars and justifications regarding above case where provided to me and I had no chance to exercice basic civil rights.

 

TUNA 98:5 BYGG 2022.44 we did not consent to the first proposal and provided a substantial technical and legal input.   major consideration technical and legal analysis is ongoing.

   

ignoring citizen, correspondence with mr Hanak     correspondence with mr Hanak, as one can see Mr. Hanak deflects the question by answering someting else. In order to confuse the citizen Mr. Hanak in a response doesn't include the original e-mail  where there is a question. Very clever way to to fool citizens what I know from the countries where I have worked with Mr. Hans Blix. The same approach.   Let's follow step by step to Hanak 2022-05-17 no answer to Hanak, reminder 2022-05-24   from Hanak 2022-05-24 Mr Hanak refers to anther property not the property I ask for i.e. 25:12 he removes question  e-mail

 

	THE COMMUNICATION RQUEST FOR  THE FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ENABLING TO EXERCICE CITIZENS' RIGHTS.
a fundamental request underlying democratic rights
point 1 and 2 relate to the case Tuna 25-12 point 3 relates to the caseTuna 25-12 and Tuna 89-5